The Real Antismoking Campaign Manhwa

moral of the story : quit smoking so you'll get a girlfriend.

 

alright, time to start smoking so i can quit and get me sum girl.

It felt more like the moral was : Even if you start trying to quit for someone else, once you know the truth about what smoking does to your body, you will want to quit for your own sake.

Pretty good for propaganda.  XD

Note: <3 the Random Button.  Never would've found something like this otherwise.

Lookism brought me here...

Surprisingly entertaining for propaganda.

moral of the story : quit smoking so you'll get a girlfriend.

alright, time to start smoking so i can quit and get me sum girl.

Well, as blatant propaganda goes, it was a fun little manhwa.  It's hard to be a masterpiece when it's all about plugging something like that, for a government ministry yet, even if the plug is in a direction I approve of.  But I'm not all "give me back the minutes of my life wasted!" so really that's better than you'd expect given the constraints.

Am I the only one who thought it would be kinda funny if he goes through all this effort only to find out she just used smoking as the most convenient excuse to brush off an unwanted confession? Of course still great of he quits, but it's something I could see happening.

 

On a side note, I thought it was interesting that the author made the focus quitting for someone else. Even if a person doesn't care how it effects them personally, it'd be great if they can quit for other peoples sake. Personally I find smoking gross and the purposeful continuation of it a sad disrespect of one's health and life. That said, if it only impacted the smoker I'd leave it at personal choice despite my own disappointment. Second-hand smoke though is a really nasty thing, more dangerous for people than what the smoker is breathing in. I get especially aggravated when I see people smoke around their children or pets. They don't have the option of getting away or having a say in the matter, they essentially get force fed poison. To me that's beyond indifference to others, that is purposely choosing to disregard their wellbeing.

As someone who has parent that have smoked (mos still smokes a lot) in the past I totally agree with you. I have never been able to run for more then 2 meters before getting problems with breathing (sadly I am not even joking). Even the children who had problems did better- we were pretty active in school, a lots of hiking, traveling by foot etc. Parents who smoke around their kids should get some sort of punishment, because you are damaging your child for life. No matter how nice a person seems to be, if you smoke you are automatically put in the " I can maybe tolerate you, only if you do not smoke" category.

Am I the only one who thought it would be kinda funny if he goes through all this effort only to find out she just used smoking as the most convenient excuse to brush off an unwanted confession? Of course still great of he quits, but it's something I could see happening.

 

On a side note, I thought it was interesting that the author made the focus quitting for someone else. Even if a person doesn't care how it effects them personally, it'd be great if they can quit for other peoples sake. Personally I find smoking gross and the purposeful continuation of it a sad disrespect of one's health and life. That said, if it only impacted the smoker I'd leave it at personal choice despite my own disappointment. Second-hand smoke though is a really nasty thing, more dangerous for people than what the smoker is breathing in. I get especially aggravated when I see people smoke around their children or pets. They don't have the option of getting away or having a say in the matter, they essentially get force fed poison. To me that's beyond indifference to others, that is purposely choosing to disregard their wellbeing.

And then the author gives you some nightmare fuel about second hand smoking.

Am I the only one who thought it would be kinda funny if he goes through all this effort only to find out she just used smoking as the most convenient excuse to brush off an unwanted confession? Of course still great of he quits, but it's something I could see happening.

On a side note, I thought it was interesting that the author made the focus quitting for someone else. Even if a person doesn't care how it effects them personally, it'd be great if they can quit for other peoples sake. Personally I find smoking gross and the purposeful continuation of it a sad disrespect of one's health and life. That said, if it only impacted the smoker I'd leave it at personal choice despite my own disappointment. Second-hand smoke though is a really nasty thing, more dangerous for people than what the smoker is breathing in. I get especially aggravated when I see people smoke around their children or pets. They don't have the option of getting away or having a say in the matter, they essentially get force fed poison. To me that's beyond indifference to others, that is purposely choosing to disregard their wellbeing.

PervySageChuck, a frequent commenter on these here pages and tireless supporter of all that is sexy, kinky and/or perverted.

I am sure, for instance, that he would heartily endorse this classic Tom Lehrer song, Smut.

Checked "World's End Harem".

Searched for his name on the first page.

Was disappointed.

PervySageChuck, a frequent commenter on these here pages and tireless supporter of all that is sexy, kinky and/or perverted.

I am sure, for instance, that he would heartily endorse this classic Tom Lehrer song, Smut.

And our Head Proofreader, currently in a break due to real life matters. My main partner in crime in scanlation.

So... who is ol' pervy?

PervySageChuck, a frequent commenter on these here pages and tireless supporter of all that is sexy, kinky and/or perverted.

I am sure, for instance, that he would heartily endorse this classic Tom Lehrer song, Smut.

Lol just realized that. Love the dude though - when you had enough of the "I'm here for the plot" comments - PLG saves your day with actual plot, on point. Then again I wonder if we left him with ol pervy we could see some blasted tsukkomi boke. @PLG sorry man you're cool.

 

That aside, imo this manhwa's lacking a 'kick' to be a great 5-star work, so a lively comment section might help attract readers to find the important message.

For the record, I have the heartiest respect for ol' pervy and have a significant place in my, um, heart, for his interests.

So... who is ol' pervy?

Then again I wonder if we left him with ol pervy we could see some blasted tsukkomi boke.

For the record, I have the heartiest respect for ol' pervy and have a significant place in my, um, heart, for his interests.

Cigarette ads still exist in some countries ? These guys really have no shame.

Ads? So many Manga's and Animes aimed at teenagers have no problem promoting smoking, Sanji from One Piece is a classic example. Another is the promotion of heavy drinking in Manga, (You just know if they have a 25+ female not in a relationship in anime/manga, she'll be an alcoholic.)

I just realized a trend in the comments.

Wherever Purple Library Guy is, there will be essays in the comments.

Lol just realized that. Love the dude though - when you had enough of the "I'm here for the plot" comments - PLG saves your day with actual plot, on point. Then again I wonder if we left him with ol pervy we could see some blasted tsukkomi boke. @PLG sorry man you're cool.

That aside, imo this manhwa's lacking a 'kick' to be a great 5-star work, so a lively comment section might help attract readers to find the important message.

I just realized a trend in the comments.

Wherever Purple Library Guy is, there will be essays in the comments.

Dat redraw though

Spoiler

their cameo on lookism :

Hi Purple Library Guy, I find your comment interesting as I also have a neutral opinion about smoking, such as the person you were replying to. I believe it is an established certainty that people die of variable causes whether or not they smoke. But that aside, I want to respond to a few of your perspectives with mine. 

Spoiler

I am not addicted to smoking, but admit it is able to calm me down instantly. Thus I use it when I need it. Such as people would use any tool, take meds, painkillers, cars that emit pollution but gets you somewhere quickly, et cetera. I may not touch one in several months, or have two in a day. But yes, it is possible to not get addicted.

 

If your concern is about smell, I understand. If you live in the places where they only have shitty ones. But in other places they could come in many convincing flavours and scents, such as strawberries! Also, some good quality tobaccos have natural spice tastes and scents, and they're fine. 

 

Ads would have the same nature, regardless the products. For example unnecessarily expensive gadgets, including smartphones that exploded or screens that emits unstable radiation. They may be specialised in persuasion, but medias are quite fair in broadcasting incidents like that. People are well-informed of risks and facts, as opposed to your term "victims". I agree that it comes to choice as adults. Yet when it comes to addiction, no thing is innocent anymore, even video games or comics.

Well, I have now met someone who sometimes smokes but is not addicted.  So, I'll concede it's possible.  But I would still say the one in a thousand or whatever for whom this is the case, is not a basis for making policy.  You, my friend, are an outlier--an impressive outlier, but not relevant to the general issue.

As to advertising, maybe I wasn't clear enough:  My point applies to advertising in general, not just to advertising cigarettes. 

Addiction, meanwhile, is not great in itself, but becoming addicted to video games is relatively unlikely to kill you.  It's the combination of addiction and a literally 50% eventual death rate that makes marketing cigarettes simply evil.  Really, how hard is this?  Giving someone a revolver with three bullets in it--or even two--and telling them Russian roulette is cool is a bad thing to do. 

This is one of those ideas that sounds great but results in widespread use of things that eventually kill 50% of people who use them, with a lot of health problems along the way.  That, just by itself, should prompt a re-evaluation. 

Also, you've got a contradiction there--not a theoretical one, but in practice.  'Cause, you say there's nothing shameful about smoking, which is fine.  And then you say shame comes when you're addicted.  Well, if I had ever met or heard of a smoker who wasn't addicted that would be a distinction worth making, but in the real world . . .

Personally, I don't think there's anything shameful about smoking.  I think it's a very bad idea, I wish it didn't cost the medical system so much money, and I don't want to smell it, but shame is for the bastards profiting from death, not the victims.

(side note:  If people are going to smoke, why did we have to standardize on the yuckiest smelling kind?!  Pipes actually smell good, cigars can smell OK in the open air, cigarettes smell foul, so of course we went with cigarettes.  WTF?!)

 

Spoiler

As to ads and influence, I guess the question in the end is, do we insist that in order to survive and live well, people should have to be perfect hypothetical constructs rather than people?  Because really, I think if we're gonna have a society it should be one where people can live well even if they're, you know, real imperfect people with flaws and vulnerabilities.  And we know that real imperfect people are vulnerable to various sorts of persuasion; they have a lot of psychological Achilles' heels, handles, that smart people (and above all, people with the resources for research and training on how to do it) can exploit. 

 

So advertising is not some neutral thing, nor is it a fair contest between equals.  If it was, there wouldn't be an advertising industry.  The people targeted all face advertising individually, on their own, with no training in how it works or what facets of their personalities it is designed to take advantage of, while on the other hand the people doing the targeting are big organizations of trained professionals relying on techniques that have been researched like crazy, who pour money into that shit.  If one side gets to be huge organizations with schools and researchers and gobs of cash, I don't see why the onus is on the targets to be all rugged individualist and shit.

 

Furthermore, there isn't much need to persuade people to do things they already want to do which are in their interests, so for the most part advertising is going to be for fucking people over--getting them to hand over their money for shit they don't need (or, in the case of cigarettes, shit which will kill them and make them stink).  It's the way our world today works, and it's the way some people maybe have to make ends meet, but it sucks and is ultimately immoral.  I'd be leery of someone who made their living advertising much the way I'd be leery of someone who made their living in most parts of the finance industry or running a mine in the third world.

Hi Purple Library Guy, I find your comment interesting as I also have a neutral opinion about smoking, such as the person you were replying to. I believe it is an established certainty that people die of variable causes whether or not they smoke. But that aside, I want to respond to a few of your perspectives with mine. 

I am not addicted to smoking, but admit it is able to calm me down instantly. Thus I use it when I need it. Such as people would use any tool, take meds, painkillers, cars that emit pollution but gets you somewhere quickly, et cetera. I may not touch one in several months, or have two in a day. But yes, it is possible to not get addicted.

If your concern is about smell, I understand. If you live in the places where they only have shitty ones. But in other places they could come in many convincing flavours and scents, such as strawberries! Also, some good quality tobaccos have natural spice tastes and scents, and they're fine. 

Ads would have the same nature, regardless the products. For example unnecessarily expensive gadgets, including smartphones that exploded or screens that emits unstable radiation. They may be specialised in persuasion, but medias are quite fair in broadcasting incidents like that. People are well-informed of risks and facts, as opposed to your term "victims". I agree that it comes to choice as adults. Yet when it comes to addiction, no thing is innocent anymore, even video games or comics.

There's nothing shameful about smoking. Nothing shameful about enjoying good things. Shame comes when you're addicted and hindered of your capability to balance things out.

 

Ads, whatever the product, are just one's way of making ends meet for their own life. How much others are influenced by it, falls wholly to their own discretion and responsibility of life.

This is one of those ideas that sounds great but results in widespread use of things that eventually kill 50% of people who use them, with a lot of health problems along the way.  That, just by itself, should prompt a re-evaluation. 

Also, you've got a contradiction there--not a theoretical one, but in practice.  'Cause, you say there's nothing shameful about smoking, which is fine.  And then you say shame comes when you're addicted.  Well, if I had ever met or heard of a smoker who wasn't addicted that would be a distinction worth making, but in the real world . . .

Personally, I don't think there's anything shameful about smoking.  I think it's a very bad idea, I wish it didn't cost the medical system so much money, and I don't want to smell it, but shame is for the bastards profiting from death, not the victims.

(side note:  If people are going to smoke, why did we have to standardize on the yuckiest smelling kind?!  Pipes actually smell good, cigars can smell OK in the open air, cigarettes smell foul, so of course we went with cigarettes.  WTF?!)

Cigarette ads still exist in some countries ? These guys really have no shame.

There's nothing shameful about smoking. Nothing shameful about enjoying good things. Shame comes when you're addicted and hindered of your capability to balance things out.

Ads, whatever the product, are just one's way of making ends meet for their own life. How much others are influenced by it, falls wholly to their own discretion and responsibility of life.

I say we put all smokers in gulags and let them do hard work with little to eat.. oh and the fatties too