Oink
blogger Phil Boyce has reminded me of this anti-smoking strip I did in
1987 for the OINK! SMOKEBUSTERS SPECIAL. I didn't hold back in my
contempt for the damage that smoking does. You can read the story behind
the comic on Phil's blog at this link:
https://oink.blog/.../18/oink-smokebuster-special-rare-fun/
I should add that I have nothing against people who smoke. It's their choice. Some of my closest friends smoke. It's the damage that smoking does that I hate, so this strip was an extreme attempt to discourage young kids from taking up the habit. I don't know it it had any effect. Hope so.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
never been a smoker, never wanted to. Middle class habbit which started upper class for people with money and no sense. People say "Oh, it's releases stress" but no.. in the short term, some of the bits can slightly reduce stress, but the main part of that is addiction release. It in fact increases stress long term among other things. If people wanted to damage themselves, that's kinda their problem.. but since secondary smoke has killed and damaged alot more, it becomes another problem altogether. Roy Castle died of Secondhand smoke which gave him Lung cancer. So he had that because of other people's smoke. Okay, you can start to say about how many people smoke for most of their lives with some but often not hughly visible to the public problems and live a long life (I had a erm.. step-grandmother who refused to believe there was ANY harm in smoking) partly due to building up a kinda immunity but end of hte day, when you force it on others, it's not longer a matter of your choice.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I do find that, while i often enjoy some of the fun strips that can be done for Anti-smoking, they often come into the 'convince your friends, bore your enemies' problem.
Also, I do have friends that smoke. they know my views and I know theirs. If the smoking was limited to just the people with the cigerettes then I would just call them stupid and wasteful for smoking, but when it affects others who choice NOT to smoke.. thats when it really becomes another matter for me.
I wouldn't have thought it was a middle class habit. Most working class people smoked years ago. I don't think smoking was ever defined by one class.
ReplyDeleteYes, agreed about passive smoking although that has been reduced since smokers had to go outside to light up.
When smoking started, it was Upper class. only the rich could afford. After a while, it moved down to the middle class with the 'let's copy the rich and think we are higher'. As one thing that defines social class structure (though not the only) is money, IF you got the money to waste on such things, you aren't low working class or proletariat. Things probebly changed around victorian england time.. WW1 meant to lead to the end of class issues etc.. As I see things, there is the term 'Money to burn'.. Cigerettes are just that.. you pay money, you get something to burn. Does you and no-one else any good so if you do that that money to burn.. can't really complain about having to struggle for money really.
ReplyDeletebut yeah.. probebly hasn't been seen as a class thing for... a very long time..