Marvel's No Hero Smoking Policy
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Interesting. I had mentioned a couple of weeks ago that it looked like
Marvel was no longer following the edict of no Marvel characters
smoking in their books. This was a edict that came out about 4 to 5
years ago from Marvel and received mainstream press coverage. And I
just read on Newsarama (http:www.comicon.com/newsarama/) that Marvel
now has an edict that their hero characters are no longer allowed to
smoke.
While this isn't a new development, I applaud the policy.
RJRJR
Tyler Durden
>years ago from Marvel and received mainstream press coverage. And I
>just read on Newsarama (http:www.comicon.com/newsarama/) that Marvel
>now has an edict that their hero characters are no longer allowed to
>smoke.
This is absolutely absurd. While I'm not in favor of chain-smoking heroes,
this isn't what Marvel is putting a stop two. Marvel never had a bunch of
chain-smokers running around with cigarettes. What it means is that Reed
Richards can't be shown smoking a pipe anymore, and that the Thing, Nick Fury,
and Logan won't be shown with cigars.
This is, of course, pathetic. Removing any part of a character's personality
because of a given time's politically correct ideas is just plain silly. And
there's no way I'm going to believe that somewhere, a little kid is lighting up
a pipe so he can be like Reed.
Tyler Durden
"Use Soap"
Gary Majdanek
Ronald J. Rickard Jr. <rjrjr@yavin> wrote in message
news:fTxl7.40376$Xv3.7...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
>
> Interesting. I had mentioned a couple of weeks ago that it looked like
> Marvel was no longer following the edict of no Marvel characters
> smoking in their books. This was a edict that came out about 4 to 5
> years ago from Marvel and received mainstream press coverage. And I
> just read on Newsarama (http:www.comicon.com/newsarama/) that Marvel
> now has an edict that their hero characters are no longer allowed to
> smoke.
>
I realise, of course, that Marvel is an American company, but this is
so.....American. Notice that it refers to Hero characters. Presumably,
villainous characters will continue to puff away, no doubt furthering some
strange master plan.
Hmm..Smokers Bad....Non-Smokers Good. Interesting philosophy. About as
logical as bouncers allowing smartly dressed thugs into nightclubs, whilst
banning anyone wearing jeans.
Given Marvels new non-code grading policy, does this apply across the board
? Even including the MAX line ?
Best Wishes
The Villainous
Gary
Predator
he has Left the mansion smelling like an ashtray. Is Marvel saying that it
is okay to smoke while away from prying eyes but wrong in person. I mean
ult X-men is a new book and Marvel do not appear to be holding onto this
policy. Also, does this policy go for the new MAX series, intended for
adults, and not to be seen by the kids??? I don't know if Marvel will hold
onto this policy, and can't see it lasting.
Pred
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
Ronald J. Rickard Jr. <rjrjr@yavin> wrote in message
news:fTxl7.40376$Xv3.7...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
>
And Knowing Is Half The Battle
get their cigars from.
Anywho, this no smoking nonsense is stupid as hell.
Wolverine regularly eviscerates people yet he's not allowed to smoke.
*Sigh*. I hope some who can change this realizes how damn stupid the whole
thing is.
--
"If life gives you a lemon, pull out a gun and start shooting."
Please spay or neuter your pet (and hot pavement hurts them)
Not all comic books are meant for kids!
"We pull pranks because we're goofy monkey children." - Recess
Tyler Durden
Of course. Part of American culture. You go and murder all your kids, and
celebrities take up collections for your defense. You cheat on your wife with
an intern and then off her, and people debate whether you should resign from
Congress. But if you dare smoke, litter, or drive tipsy, you are the most evil
son of a bitch on the planet.
Smoking is one of the last acceptable condemnations. Bass ackwards if you ask
me.
Tyler Durden
"Use Soap"
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
What's funny here is people are wanting their comics to "catch up with
the times" and that is what Marvel is doing with this policy. Other
industries have been slowly eliminating smoking from their shows, movies,
etc. And non-smoking campaigns have been airing on TV for a few years
now.
So, is this progress? I think so and is another sign of Marvel "catching
up with the times."
RJRJR
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Nope, just to Marvel heroes in the MU books. Read the article for
more information concerning this.
Understand, that in the US, smoking is bad and the campaign to stop
children and adults from smoking has been in full gear for quite some
time. It is okay for the tobacco companies to peddle their wares
in other countries, after all, we want them to make money for their
American owners without harming Americans. They just shouldn't actively
try to sell their product in the US.
Again, this is a policy Marvel enacted quite some time ago. It looks
like the current editor-in-chief wants to enforce it.
RJRJR
Franklin Harris
"Ronald J. Rickard Jr." <rjrjr@yavin> wrote in message
> What's funny here is people are wanting their comics to "catch up with
> the times" and that is what Marvel is doing with this policy. Other
> industries have been slowly eliminating smoking from their shows, movies,
> etc. And non-smoking campaigns have been airing on TV for a few years
> now.
But given Logan's healing factor, the Thing's rocky innards and Nick Fury's
youth serum, I suspect none have to fear anything much from smoking.
--
Franklin Harris
Pulp Culture Online, www.pulpculture.net
"The only way to know where you're from is to know where you're going and
then work backward." -- The Doctor, DOCTOR WHO
MichaelMychael19
go back and erase any sign of Wolvie, Fury or the Thing smoking in reprinted
material? It's probably only a matter of time.
A.Patyk
Ronald J. Rickard Jr. wrote in message ...
>
>Understand, that in the US, smoking is bad and the campaign to stop
>children and adults from smoking has been in full gear for quite some
>time. It is okay for the tobacco companies to peddle their wares
>in other countries, after all, we want them to make money for their
>American owners without harming Americans. They just shouldn't actively
>try to sell their product in the US.
I hope there's some heavy sarcasm here...
Christopher Griffen
> While this isn't a new development, I applaud the policy.
I certainly applaud not smoking. Filthy habit. But I have mixed
feelings on this moratorium on smoking among their characters.
Still, when you point out that Wolverine is such a popular character
among kids, it only makes sense. Otherwise Wolvie ends up being just
another Joe Camel.
Adam Cadre
> You go and murder all your kids, and celebrities take up collections for
> your defense. You cheat on your wife with an intern and then off her,
> and people debate whether you should resign from Congress. But if you
> dare smoke, litter, or drive tipsy, you are the most evil son of a bitch
> on the planet.
C'mon. Your first two examples are singular crimes that affect very few
people. Your last three are habitual acts that have a direct impact on
everyone around. If Gary Condit did do what you're implicitly accusing
him of, sure, go ahead and condemn him, but he's hardly a menace to
society in general and it certainly has no effect on you or me. But
cigarette smoke wafting in my window makes me ill practically every day: a
direct impact on my life, over and over again. Litter makes the streets I
walk down disgusting, and after a cleanup it's back again the next day.
Drunk drivers could potentially kill me every time I get on the road. Of
COURSE I'm going to be more concerned about this sort of thing than I am
about sensationalized incidents on the news.
-----
Adam Cadre, Brooklyn, NY
web site: http://adamcadre.ac
novel: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060195584/adamcadreac
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Bingo. And that is why I think this policy makes sense.
RJRJR
Tyler Durden
>cigarette smoke wafting in my window makes me ill practically every day:
>a
>direct impact on my life, over and over again. Litter makes the streets
>I
>walk down disgusting, and after a cleanup it's back again the next day.
>Drunk drivers could potentially kill me every time I get on the road.
Yes, but unsightly garbage, a smell you don't enjoy (heck, I don't like how old
people smell, lets get rid of them), and some potential danger (apparently
you're more likely to be killed by a schmuck on a cellphone or eating a Big Mac
while trying to drive, we find out), aren't EVIL. By having heroes not smoke,
and villains smoke, Marvel is continuing this societal trend of trying to make
smoking equate with EVIL. Nazis are EVIL. Women who murder all their children
are EVIL. Cheating on your wife over and over again, destroying her life and
those of her children is EVIL. Taking another human life is EVIL.
Smoking...annoys some people, and increases the smoker's risk of cancer.
That's their choice.
But you know, I have to wonder why Marvel doesn't seem to care that comics
might lead children to reenact violence, Punisher might get kids to shoot
people, Wolverine might get people to stab people. Heck, Cyclops ran off on
his wife and kid for an old girlfriend at one point. But, you know...as long
as none of those characters smoke, they'll be setting a good example.
Tyler Durden
"Use Soap"
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Yes, I was being sarcastic. But there is some truth to this, since
these tobacco companies exist. If you were them, where would you
market your product? Not in the US, but elsewhere. Developing countries,
poor countries, etc.
RJRJR
Tyler Durden
>among kids, it only makes sense. Otherwise Wolvie ends up being just
>another Joe Camel.
Yeah. Because, you know, if a kid goes and stabs his brother with three steak
knives between his fingers trying to be like Wolverine, that's one thing, but
heaven help us all if that kid smokes a cigar.
Tyler Durden
"Use Soap"
Polaris
Predator wrote:
>
> But in Ultimate X-men they regularly refer to Wolverine's smoking, and that
> he has Left the mansion smelling like an ashtray. Is Marvel saying that it
> is okay to smoke while away from prying eyes but wrong in person. I mean
> ult X-men is a new book and Marvel do not appear to be holding onto this
> policy. Also, does this policy go for the new MAX series, intended for
> adults, and not to be seen by the kids??? I don't know if Marvel will hold
> onto this policy, and can't see it lasting.
>
> Pred
>
Because as of that issue, the policy had not been enforced yet.
--
Polaris
--
Legend says only virgins can see unicorns. You pretend you can't see it.
Adam Cadre
> equate with EVIL. Nazis are EVIL. Women who murder all their children
> are EVIL. Cheating on your wife over and over again, destroying her
> life and those of her children is EVIL. Taking another human life is
> EVIL.
>
> Smoking...annoys some people, and increases the smoker's risk of cancer.
> That's their choice.
Well, some people suffer the consequences of smoking without having made
that choice. My mother smoked during her pregnancy with me and I was born
with an Apgar score of 2 but eventually recovered. My mother smoked during
her pregnancy with my sister and she was born with respiratory problems she
eventually died from. (She didn't smoke during her pregnancies with my
brothers and their births went fine.) So you can see how I might wind up
considering tobacco to be a pretty darn evil substance. You've blithely
waved away the harms above, but what are the benefits of keeping this
stuff around in our society? So it allows some people to satisfy a
craving that they've deliberately inflicted on themselves. Gee, swell.
That said, and bringing this back on topic, while I *do* think tobacco is
evil, while I do think that smoking is a smudge on a hero's character, I
think this policy is misguided. Smudges are interesting. Pitting nothing
but squeaky-clean heroes against unadulterated-evil villains would get
really dull really fast. The fact that Reed Richards smokes a pipe is,
while not remotely commendable, interesting. It helps to place him as
belonging to another era, a bygone age's image of The Scientist. Which is
basically Who Reed Is. Ben Grimm's cigar helps to place him into a
subculture and class. Losing these devices would be rather a shame.
And Knowing Is Half The Battle
>Still, when you point out that Wolverine is such a popular character
>among kids, it only makes sense. Otherwise Wolvie ends up being just
>another Joe Camel.
It does not make sense. Wolvy stops smoking yet STILL chops people up with his
claws.
Gary Majdanek
> more information concerning this.
Admittedly, I hadn't time to read the article (it was late), but I have now.
Again though, the point seems to emphasise that people who smoke are
inherently unpleasant in some way. As a smoker, I find this mildly
insulting, which is not to say that I am outraged or anything quite as
drastic as that - these are comic books after all.
>
> Understand, that in the US, smoking is bad and the campaign to stop
> children and adults from smoking has been in full gear for quite some
> time. It is okay for the tobacco companies to peddle their wares
> in other countries, after all, we want them to make money for their
> American owners without harming Americans. They just shouldn't actively
> try to sell their product in the US.
Having spent about 3 months or so in the US a couple of years ago, I
appreciate that the issue is taken more seriously there. Here in the UK,
where, incidentally, we do have tobacco companies of our own, it is still
more acceptable. For example, in Salt Lake City, I came across a no-smoking
bar. Personally, I've never seen a similar establishment here. (Not to say
they don't exist, of course).
If the point is depict heroes as doing nothing that could bring harm to
themselves or others, then presumably they will also cut out alcohol,
violence and, possibly crossing the road. We could be reduced to reading the
adventures of Agoraphobic Man.
But the point regarding companies peddling their wares doesn't really apply
to an editorial decision. This is not advertising, we're talking about.
>
> Again, this is a policy Marvel enacted quite some time ago. It looks
> like the current editor-in-chief wants to enforce it.
Anyone who loses a loved one to any disease, whether smoking related or not,
has my sympathy, but to ignore the fact that people do smoke does seem to be
hiding your head in the sand. I would like to think that comics can act as a
mirror to society rather than a filter (no pun intended) on reality.
Incidentally, I seem to recollect seeing a TV news item around the time of
the release of the X-Men movie, which reported that the average age of a
comic buyer is now 38. If that is true, I would suggest that we are not
really protecting the "kids".
Cheers
Gary
coondawg
often it is a trait that provides a portion of a characters personality. the
fact that its another hype filled decision makes it more apalling. its like
the horrible tolken black heros of the 70s. rules enacted for no concrete
reason except to apear to be a good citizen are usualy a bad idea.
i wish they would have avoided the implied sex scene in ultXM with jean an
logan, i had planned on getting them to read with my son, llike i do with
UsM. but i wouldnt want marvel to prohibit premarital sex, if it moves a
story along its worth having. but parents need to monitor what thier kids
read. not some commitee. i chose not to buy him that issue.
now smoking is a foul habit but it harms less kids then premarital sex does.
but its not "kewl" to be against that. just silly JQ rubbish.
coondawg
"MichaelMychael19" <michaelm...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20010905212035...@mb-fk.news.cs.com...
JVV4sm
>appreciate that the issue is taken more seriously there. Here in the UK,
>where, incidentally, we do have tobacco companies of our own, it is still
>more acceptable. For example, in Salt Lake City, I came across a no-smoking
>bar. Personally, I've never seen a similar establishment here. (Not to say
>they don't exist, of course).
California has a state law that bans smoking in bars and restaurants (many bars
disregard it)
Michael Pastor
"JVV4sm" <jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20010906082134...@mb-fv.aol.com...
Not enough of them. I heard most of the bars in Palm Springs ignore it, but
I lived in Laguna Beach and San Diego: not a one, until last call, in a
few.
michael pastor
amazed at the hypocricy of having more automobiles in one state than any
other but won't let people smoke. sheesh.
Rob W
Yea cause a smoking cartoon camel made me run out for a pack of
cigarettes. Defintely a smoking feral CARTOON jackass with metalized
bones makes me want to run out and buy a carton.
-----------------------------------------------------
Rob W
e-mail is at usa.net
username is rob47
Brian Doyle
"JVV4sm" <jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20010906082134...@mb-fv.aol.com...
> >appreciate that the issue is taken more seriously there. Here in the UK,
> >where, incidentally, we do have tobacco companies of our own, it is still
> >more acceptable.
Pete Wisdom WILL be relieved!
> For example, in Salt Lake City, I came across a no-smoking
> >bar. Personally, I've never seen a similar establishment here. (Not to
say
> >they don't exist, of course).
I've come across many that have no smoking sections, sometimes discreet bars
for non smokers, but nope, can't think of a completely no smoking bar.
Sailor Star Kitsune
Im of two minds on the policy. Yay its great but it also treats fans like
idiots somewhat. I read comics with Wolverine, Nick Fury, and dozens of other
characters smoking and it didnt make me want to pick up a cigar. Heck I dont
see why Wolvie would quit. Healing factor rocks ;)
At the same time it might help with some impresionable people and I guess it
does send some sort of message to tobacco companies.
But on a third hand I do have family that farms tobacco. Distant family but
still.
Sailor Star Kitsune the Uncola
A witches advice: Practice safe hex.
"Everybody is a Book of Blood;
Wherever we're opened,
we're red." -Clive Barker Books of Blood
1 Miyax Point : )
Sailor Star Kitsune
Fastline was a bunch of crap and this is just getting worse. Im all for
catching up to the times but with any catch up in the times there are also
going to be people who are anachronisms. Why should Wolvie stop smoking?
Healing factor keeps him pretty well done so far. Heck if I was Wolvie I might
smoke more just to shorten the lifespan a little.
Wolvie, Thing, Reed Richards, Nick Fury, and I seem to recall the Gray Hulk
smoking a good bit, all of these traits are part of the characters. So they
should change characters to fit the politically correct times? Ha!
I dont smoke, I hate smoking, but I dont automatically want to smack someone
who lights up around me. I HATE propaganda and that is what this no smoking
policy is.
Admittedly I hate tobacco companies as much as a lot of people but I dont blame
them for someone else picking up a cigarette.
Jay Lee
Fury's
> youth serum, I suspect none have to fear anything much from smoking.
Where the HELL did NFury get a youth serum>??????????
Jay Lee
bars
> disregard it)
What's next, No Playing Billards cause it is considered gambling?
Jay Lee
won't get pregnant.
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
coondawg <cpc2@(mmmspamiloveit)mediaone.net> wrote:
>this is not progress, its a subtle form of censorship. smokers exist and
It is not censorship in any way, shape, or form. Man, I wish people
would look up this word and use it correctly! You can always count
on someone coming out and claiming censorship for something like this.
Reminds me of the stupid teenager on CNN who said the government was
trampling his human rights because they were enforcing a no swimming
policy on some beaches in California this summer.
A publisher cannot censor their own material. They are just making
editorial decisions on what is appropriate for the material they are
publishing, nothing more and nothing less.
Censorship is about the most overused word on these newsgroups and it
would be nice if people knew what it meant.
RJRJR
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
>the release of the X-Men movie, which reported that the average age of a
>comic buyer is now 38. If that is true, I would suggest that we are not
>really protecting the "kids".
No, but you have to admit, to save the industry, we need to reach out to
the kids along with others. And kids in the US are getting slammed pretty
hard with the "no smoking" campaign, so it makes sense for Marvel to enact
this policy.
RJRJR
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Ronald J. Rickard Jr. <rjrjr@yavin> wrote:
>In article <VvJl7.22403$zj5.5...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
>coondawg <cpc2@(mmmspamiloveit)mediaone.net> wrote:
>>this is not progress, its a subtle form of censorship. smokers exist and
>
>
>It is not censorship in any way, shape, or form. Man, I wish people
>would look up this word and use it correctly! You can always count
>on someone coming out and claiming censorship for something like this.
>Reminds me of the stupid teenager on CNN who said the government was
>trampling his human rights because they were enforcing a no swimming
>policy on some beaches in California this summer.
That should have read "Florida".
RJRJR
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Well, these are Superhero comics, so one would expect Wolverine to have
some sort of power that he uses to fight Supervillians.
RJRJR
Rob Hansen
In the 1970s in a one-shot written & drawn by Chaykin. The youth serum
has been referred to many times since.
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
RE-ELECT GORE IN 2004.
MichaelMychael19
is Jemas and Quesada saying something that will eventually make the newspapers
and magazines, there by giving Marvel some more free advertising.
Paul O'Brien
Durden <tlerd...@cs.comusesoap> writes
>What it means is that Reed
>Richards can't be shown smoking a pipe anymore, and that the Thing, Nick Fury,
>and Logan won't be shown with cigars.
And when was the last time we saw any of the above smoking in their
own titles?
Can you remember? Would you really notice them stopping if somebody
hadn't pointed it out to you? Can you even say for sure whether
they've stopped already?
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
Brevity is the sister of talent.
thad a doria
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <20010905191042...@mb-bg.news.cs.com>, Tyler
>Durden <tlerd...@cs.comusesoap> writes
>>What it means is that Reed
>>Richards can't be shown smoking a pipe anymore, and that the Thing, Nick Fury,
>>and Logan won't be shown with cigars.
>
>And when was the last time we saw any of the above smoking in their
>own titles?
>
>Can you remember? Would you really notice them stopping if somebody
>hadn't pointed it out to you? Can you even say for sure whether
>they've stopped already?
>
Was there this much indignant rage when smoking caused Jim Gordon's heart
attack and Perry White's cancer?
--
"When all else fails...THROW ROCKS!" -T'Challa
Matt Adler
news:20010906012922...@mb-co.news.cs.com...
Thank you for summing up this hypocrisy perfectly.
--
"Hmm, Mr. Immortal has the makings of an interesting concept, but c'mon,
Flatman is kind of dopey."
"Dopey? Where's your SENSE OF WONDER? Your vacant eyes betray the DEADNESS
OF YOUR VERY SOUL!"
-- As told by Adam Cadre
A.Patyk
thad a doria wrote in message ...
Probably not, because both are reasonable, realistic effects of smoking.
Much better to show that than just magically have them not smoke because of
a company edict.
Paul O'Brien
>now smoking is a foul habit but it harms less kids then premarital sex does.
Smoking kills you. Premarital sex gives you orgasms.
I'll have the premarital sex, thanks.
Paul O'Brien
>
>It does not make sense. Wolvy stops smoking yet STILL chops people up with his
>claws.
I think the logic is that the average underage reader is more likely
to take seriously the implication that smoking is cool because Wolverine
does it than the implication that murder is cool because Wolverine
does it.
Matt Adler
news:9BNl7.46286$Xv3.8...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
So then, if he used the smoke from his cigars to fight supervillains, it
would be ok? This "edict" is utter hypocrisy, aimed at pandering to an
ignorant, unthinking, reactionary public.
Matt Adler
news:RdAsKUAS...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
> In article <20010905191042...@mb-bg.news.cs.com>, Tyler
> Durden <tlerd...@cs.comusesoap> writes
> >What it means is that Reed
> >Richards can't be shown smoking a pipe anymore, and that the Thing, Nick
Fury,
> >and Logan won't be shown with cigars.
>
> And when was the last time we saw any of the above smoking in their
> own titles?
>
> Can you remember? Would you really notice them stopping if somebody
> hadn't pointed it out to you? Can you even say for sure whether
> they've stopped already?
We saw Wolverine smoking only a few issues ago. And Nick Fury doesn't have
his own title, but I've seen him smoking in just about every recent
appearance he's made. It's a basic part of their characters. They aren't
goody-two-shoes. They have bad habits.
KaPop!
>
> >This was a edict that came out about 4 to 5
> >years ago from Marvel and received mainstream press coverage. And I
> >just read on Newsarama (http:www.comicon.com/newsarama/) that Marvel
> >now has an edict that their hero characters are no longer allowed to
> >smoke.
>
> This is absolutely absurd. While I'm not in favor of chain-smoking heroes,
> this isn't what Marvel is putting a stop two. Marvel never had a bunch of
> chain-smokers running around with cigarettes. What it means is that Reed
> Richards can't be shown smoking a pipe anymore, and that the Thing, Nick Fury,
> and Logan won't be shown with cigars.
>
> because of a given time's politically correct ideas is just plain silly. And
> there's no way I'm going to believe that somewhere, a little kid is lighting up
> a pipe so he can be like Reed.
>
Well said, Tyler. Fury & Grimm w/o stogies just wouldn't be Fury &
Grimm. Of course, Wolverine may NOT be Wolverine anyway. But that's
another discussion...
Karl
Matt Adler
> In article <20010906035352...@mb-fv.aol.com>, And Knowing Is
> Half The Battle <lot...@aol.comaol.com> writes
> >
> >It does not make sense. Wolvy stops smoking yet STILL chops people up
with his
> >claws.
>
> I think the logic is that the average underage reader is more likely
> to take seriously the implication that smoking is cool because Wolverine
> does it than the implication that murder is cool because Wolverine
> does it.
That's poor logic. There've been studies shown that kids become more
aggressive when exposed to violent entertainment. Whether or not you believe
those studies, there's at least as much evidence that they will be
influenced by violent content, as by seeing a given character smoke.
Tyler Durden
Alcohol can cause cirrhosis of the liver used as directed. Going out in the
sun without sunscreen increases your risk of skin cancer. All the cholesterol
in fast food makes you obese and increases your risk of heart attack and
stroke, which still kill more people than cancer.
I'll think no heroes smoking makes sense when they also all stop drinking and
eating fast food, and when we see them putting on sunscreen everytime they go
outside.
Tyler Durden
"Use Soap"
Matt Deres
Gary Majdanek wrote in message
<3b973bc7$0$230$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>> Nope, just to Marvel heroes in the MU books. Read the article for
>> more information concerning this.
>
>Admittedly, I hadn't time to read the article (it was late), but I have
now.
>Again though, the point seems to emphasise that people who smoke are
>inherently unpleasant in some way.
They are. They stink. They have yellow stains on their fingers and brown
stains on their teeth.
Matt
Tyler Durden
>editorial decisions on what is appropriate for the material they are
>publishing, nothing more and nothing less.
Until an actual incident occurs. If a writer writes a Fantastic Four story,
and the artist draws it, and they have Ben smoking a cigar or Reed smoking a
pipe, and Quesada sends the art back to be redone so that they aren't smoking,
that's censorship. They are censoring the writer and artist of the issue.
Just as, if a comic were turned in with too much nudity or violence, the
publisher might censor that by sending it back to be redone.
But, they're being far more thorough in censoring smoking, and sex for that
matter, than they are in censoring violence, as if somehow smoking were worse
than senseless bloodshed.
Tyler Durden
"Use Soap"
Tyler Durden
>own titles?
>
>Can you remember? Would you really notice them stopping if somebody
>hadn't pointed it out to you? Can you even say for sure whether
>they've stopped already?
Actually, I can. You see, Marvel did this once before, and scuttled an
interesting storyline in which Mary Jane was trying to quite smoking and having
trouble. An interesting subplot ruined since Marvel said she had to instantly
stop. When Ben and Logan's cigars came back, I noticed.
And to my mind, the classic image of Wolverine will always be from the UXM
Atlantis Attacks Annual, the much reused shot of him leaning against a wall in
silhouette lighting up a stogie.
I'm actually a cigar smoker IRL, though...wouldn't touch a cigarette if you
paid me...so I tend to relish those little character moments more than some.
Others might notice less.
Tyler Durden
"Use Soap"
Tyler Durden
>attack and Perry White's cancer?
No, in fact, Jim Gordon's story was a great story. If Marvel wanted to do some
great stories where any of these characters saw complications or whathaveyou
with smoking, and decided to quite, I wouldn't mind at all.
What ticks me off is the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy of Quesada publishing
increasingly violent and bloody comics, increasingly sexually graphic comics,
even in what is supposed to be the 'Young Readers' line (Ultimate X-Men, the
Ultimates, anyone?), and then pretending he cares about the image he sends
children, and doing it over something so petty, so PC, and so trivial as
smoking.
Tyler Durden
"Use Soap"
coondawg
goverment actualy pays marvel for non smoking ads, and iirc the goverment
allowed comics, cartoons and tv shows to recieve the ad funding for
including anti drug, tabaco and liquor storylines in place of actual ads.
thus (i know its a stretch) the goverment is censoring mark millar into
making logan quit smoking. you are right tho its more of editorial then
anything else, but it still is inane feel-good ism run amok
"Ronald J. Rickard Jr." <rjrjr@yavin> wrote in message
coondawg
STD's and causes unwanted pregnancy. smoking causes maybe 1 out of 3 people
to develop some form of illness about 20 years down the line. and often
those illnesses are prevented by simply quiting at the time of early
detection.
masterbation gives you orgamams too. and that satisfying smoke after wanking
it is just icing. lol
"Paul O'Brien" <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TxtsRDAk...@esoterica.demon.co.uk...
coondawg
thats all it is
"MichaelMychael19" <michaelm...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20010906141506...@mb-fr.news.cs.com...
coondawg
hehe
"thad a doria" <do...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:R6Rl7.90$N4.1...@news.uchicago.edu...
coondawg
policy has rubbed me the wrong way, especially after the amount of press
hype jQ has been responsible for. i'm all for hype for legit reasons (such
as the ads for tangled web featuring the review severance package story) but
his sentry-xmen-origin and all the bs has realy turned me off.
"Tyler Durden" <tlerd...@cs.comusesoap> wrote in message
news:20010906173809...@mb-co.news.cs.com...
coondawg
the companies. and it will never be outlawed, not because jesse helms gets
campaign monies from phillip morris, but because teddy kennedy enjoys
spending the taxes of the poor bastards hooked on smokes.
most regressive tax there is besides the lotto if you ask me.
coondawg
got that
"Christopher Griffen" <cgri...@cisco.com> wrote in message
news:4761bc50.01090...@posting.google.com...
> rjrjr@yavin (Ronald J. Rickard Jr.) wrote in message
news:<fTxl7.40376$Xv3.7...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com>...
> > While this isn't a new development, I applaud the policy.
>
> I certainly applaud not smoking. Filthy habit. But I have mixed
> feelings on this moratorium on smoking among their characters.
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Tyler Durden <tlerd...@cs.comusesoap> wrote:
>>A publisher cannot censor their own material. They are just making
>>editorial decisions on what is appropriate for the material they are
>>publishing, nothing more and nothing less.
>
>Until an actual incident occurs. If a writer writes a Fantastic Four story,
>and the artist draws it, and they have Ben smoking a cigar or Reed smoking a
>pipe, and Quesada sends the art back to be redone so that they aren't smoking,
>that's censorship. They are censoring the writer and artist of the issue.
>Just as, if a comic were turned in with too much nudity or violence, the
>publisher might censor that by sending it back to be redone.
Ummm...
That's not censorship. That's part of the editorial process.
<Sigh>
RJRJR
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Matt Adler <mad...@ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>"Ronald J. Rickard Jr." <rjrjr@yavin> wrote in message
>news:9BNl7.46286$Xv3.8...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
>> In article <20010906035352...@mb-fv.aol.com>,
>> And Knowing Is Half The Battle <lot...@aol.comaol.com> wrote:
>> >>From: cgri...@cisco.com (Christopher Griffen)
>> >
>> >>Still, when you point out that Wolverine is such a popular character
>> >>among kids, it only makes sense. Otherwise Wolvie ends up being just
>> >>another Joe Camel.
>> >
>> >It does not make sense. Wolvy stops smoking yet STILL chops people up
>with his
>> >claws.
>>
>>
>> Well, these are Superhero comics, so one would expect Wolverine to have
>> some sort of power that he uses to fight Supervillians.
>
>So then, if he used the smoke from his cigars to fight supervillains, it
>would be ok? This "edict" is utter hypocrisy, aimed at pandering to an
>ignorant, unthinking, reactionary public.
>
<Sarcasm on>
You're right. The public is ignorant and we should *force* them to accept
smoking. After all, it has been around for so long and so what if people
die from it, it creates a burden for our health care systems, and is a
disgusting habit. But a handful of us cannot break the habit, because
we are weak, so we should make others suffer with us.
They are stepping all over our rights. Let's fight this and make them
see the error of their ways.
<Sarcasm off>
Uh, right.
RJRJR
KurtBusiek
Written by Starlin, drawn by Chaykin, as I recall.
It was MARVEL SPOTLIGHT #31.
kdb
Gary Majdanek
I've just read all of the posts made since my last one. BTW not meaning that
any of them were made in response to anything that I posted, it just seems
that there were so many posts both pro and anti, that I've found it
difficult to choose where to respond. So I thought lets make the reply to
Ronalds original post and see where we go, bearing in mind all I've read and
that I'll ramble a bit. Please, smokers & non-smokers, this is only personal
to me. I am not having a dig at anyone for expressing their personal
beliefs. It's so obvious, for example that Ronald (and others) will never
agree with me over this. C'est la vie.
Firstly, lets confess - I'm a smoker - but I think that you'd all guessed
that. The thing is, that as societies (both the US and the UK) have moved
their stances, I haven't. When I say I'm a smoker, I mean that I started 26
years ago and I still enjoy it - I really do. I started work being able to
smoke at my desk, and was able to do so into the 1990's. I can't now.
This, I accept, as long as no-one objects to me nipping out and feeding my
addiction. And, yes addiction is the word.
Officially, this is not allowed, but the company rule is not rigidly
enforced for myself and many others. Fair enough. Of course, you then find
that non-smokers complain because they feel that you are receiving
additional breaks. Well, tough! I'm not the person who has moved the
goalposts here. You want non-smoking offices, then this is the price you
pay. What harm am I doing now ?
I made a point about alcohol, and someone, quite rightly pointed that there
is a difference between the two. I think though that when we talk about
massive users, we should recognise that, with tobacco, we just talk about
heavy smokers as opposed to an alcoholic. Excess alcohol causes far more
abherrent behaviour than tobacco. It's probably easier to get addicted to
nicotine - but no-one I've ever known has got abusive because they've had 40
cigarettes in a day.
The real point there is that if either of them were newly discovered drugs
today, they'd probably both be banned.
Of course, this doesn't have too much to with comics. But here's a thing. A
few years ago I was in San Francisco (Motto: Less knee jerk than LA - or so
I thought).
Personally, I had a great time, but in subsequent times I know of at least 2
holidays (including one homeymoon) whose time (and money) was wasted because
these of the way that they were treated as smokers. (New Motto: Just
another place in California). The thing that struck me though, was not that
America may be dangerous because it may, or may not, allow people to smoke 0
it was the fact that there seemed to be to many guns. OK - perhaps not as
addictive, but I would suggest more dangerous. I'd been in the states 6 days
before I got mugged at gun point - they didn't get away with too much, but I
figure that they'd have got nothing if they'd come at me with a lit fag. And
yet, the same society thinks that, due to an ancient amendment to it's
conststituion, it's functioning OK when children go through metal detectors
on their way to their place of education. (I know it's rare - but it does
occur). And we can debate the horrors of lighting up, but still feel happy
in supporting a medium, which as far as super-heroes go, seem to excel in
promoting vigilantism - a remarkably more dangerous thing, it would seem to
me, especially in a culture where guns are promoted.
Does Marvel (or any other publisher, of course) have any influence on the
way people act. Interact, is probably better. I would suggest it's marginal
at best. Bigger (and better) influences happen in real life. Parents,
teachers - that kind of thing. Equally, perhaps rock stars or actors,
perhaps even guys from the WWF.Not Nick Fury or Reed Richards.
Of course, a few days ago I watched Question Time (not sure of the US
equivalent - kinda like Politcally Incorrect without the humour), so it's
influenced me (Doh! so gullible) to respond to comic book company decisions
in a totally over the top way. That's the power of the media for ya.
Again - with the belief that the debate is interesting, and the hope that
no-one is offended (bored I could understand)
I remain,
Puffing Gary
The Incredible Hulk
unless it reeferz, cuz everyone know that good for you, TV and Movies and
even comix say so.
We got to celebrate good thing by getting tattoos, drinking lots of liquor
and doing boom-boom with every strange chick we meet!
Ultimate Hulk loooooooveeee to do boom-boom with strangers.
Yer Frend (tribal tats rool, and will last 4ever!),
Ultimate Hulk
"Ronald J. Rickard Jr." <rjrjr@yavin> wrote in message
news:fTxl7.40376$Xv3.7...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
>
> Interesting. I had mentioned a couple of weeks ago that it looked like
> Marvel was no longer following the edict of no Marvel characters
> smoking in their books. This was a edict that came out about 4 to 5
> years ago from Marvel and received mainstream press coverage. And I
> just read on Newsarama (http:www.comicon.com/newsarama/) that Marvel
> now has an edict that their hero characters are no longer allowed to
> smoke.
>
> While this isn't a new development, I applaud the policy.
>
> RJRJR
Gary Majdanek
> smoking. After all, it has been around for so long and so what if people
> die from it, it creates a burden for our health care systems, and is a
> disgusting habit. But a handful of us cannot break the habit, because
> we are weak, so we should make others suffer with us.
>
news story about a US tobacco company claiming that it was good for some
Eastern European countries economy. It was pretty crassly
done...nonetheless.....
.. In a follow up here the BBC produced a report that suggested that the
income derived from tobacco taxation produces a £7 billion (I guess $10
billion) surplus over the additional costs to our health service that relate
to tobacco related diseases.
In the UK, at least, the economic argument doesn't really hold up.
Cheers
Gary
Matt Adler
> <Sarcasm on>
>
> You're right. The public is ignorant and we should *force* them to accept
> smoking. After all, it has been around for so long and so what if people
> die from it, it creates a burden for our health care systems, and is a
> disgusting habit. But a handful of us cannot break the habit, because
> we are weak, so we should make others suffer with us.
>
> They are stepping all over our rights. Let's fight this and make them
> see the error of their ways.
>
> <Sarcasm off>
I'm interested to hear how the above relates to Marvel's declaration of
no-smoking in their comics.
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Gary Majdanek <Gary.M...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>> You're right. The public is ignorant and we should *force* them to accept
>> smoking. After all, it has been around for so long and so what if people
>> die from it, it creates a burden for our health care systems, and is a
>> disgusting habit. But a handful of us cannot break the habit, because
>> we are weak, so we should make others suffer with us.
>>
>Again, not sure if it applies within the US, but you may recollect a recent
>news story about a US tobacco company claiming that it was good for some
>Eastern European countries economy. It was pretty crassly
>done...nonetheless.....
This is certainly a claim from US tobacco companies as well. I'm sure
advertising abroad in poorer countries has increased while it has decreased
in the US.
>.. In a follow up here the BBC produced a report that suggested that the
>income derived from tobacco taxation produces a £7 billion (I guess $10
>billion) surplus over the additional costs to our health service that relate
>to tobacco related diseases.
To be honest, I'm not sure if the income from tobacco offsets its cost
to the US health system. I know the anti-tobacco campaign has been
using the "burden to the health care system and its cost to working
families paying health care costs" alot though. I guess it could be
argued that the taxes from tobacco do not necessarily go to the
health care system, hence the reason for this statement.
>In the UK, at least, the economic argument doesn't really hold up.
Could be true for the US as well. Probably more so since the government
can go after the tobacco companies every few decades and get a large
settlement out of it. I don't remember what the US was going to do
with the money however. Build more roads?
RJRJR
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Matt Adler <mad...@ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>"Ronald J. Rickard Jr." <rjrjr@yavin> wrote:
>
>> <Sarcasm on>
>>
>> You're right. The public is ignorant and we should *force* them to accept
>> smoking. After all, it has been around for so long and so what if people
>> die from it, it creates a burden for our health care systems, and is a
>> disgusting habit. But a handful of us cannot break the habit, because
>> we are weak, so we should make others suffer with us.
>>
>> They are stepping all over our rights. Let's fight this and make them
>> see the error of their ways.
>>
>> <Sarcasm off>
>
>I'm interested to hear how the above relates to Marvel's declaration of
>no-smoking in their comics.
No more so than the post I was following up to, I guess. I've seen a
many of threads go off topic, so it was probably only natural that this
one would turn into a "anti-smoking" / "pro-smoking" snipe.
Needless to say, I'll be more aware of where I start these discussions and
attempt to keep them on topic.
I wonder if we'll get an explanation for why some of the Marvel characters
gave up smoking in the books themselves. I doubt it, but it could be
interesting. I'm sure a writer or two wouldn't mind making a joke or
two about it.
RJRJR
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Gary Majdanek <Gary.M...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>Does Marvel (or any other publisher, of course) have any influence on the
>way people act. Interact, is probably better. I would suggest it's marginal
>at best. Bigger (and better) influences happen in real life. Parents,
>teachers - that kind of thing. Equally, perhaps rock stars or actors,
>perhaps even guys from the WWF.Not Nick Fury or Reed Richards.
That is an interesting question. I suspect that if we were closer to
the 40s/50s, the answer would be yes, comic publishers have an influence
on the way people, especially children, act. After all, we had the
Senate hearings, Wertham, etc. I'd argue there is a vocal minority of
people today who would make the same argument, that comics[, video games,
and movies] do have an influence on children. But I suspect the majority
of people today are fairly educated about cause and effect and would say
that comics do not have an effect on people, again especially children.
A well thought out post, by the way.
RJRJR
Jeremy Henderson
wrote:
>
>Interesting. I had mentioned a couple of weeks ago that it looked like
>Marvel was no longer following the edict of no Marvel characters
>smoking in their books. This was a edict that came out about 4 to 5
>years ago from Marvel and received mainstream press coverage. And I
>just read on Newsarama (http:www.comicon.com/newsarama/) that Marvel
>now has an edict that their hero characters are no longer allowed to
>smoke.
>
>While this isn't a new development, I applaud the policy.
Blah, just more smoke being blown up our asses (pardon the pun) by the
Marvel hype machine. If they stopped portraying their characters
smoking and didn't send out a press release about it, no one would
even notice. If it's a change tha barely even registers to us in terms
of the stories, who gives a damn?
Read my insane ramblings!
http://www.storymania.com/cgibin/sm2/smshowauthorbox.cgi?page=1&author=HendersonJL
Mathew Krull
Actually, the problem is that, unlike the UK, we in the US do not have socialized
medicine. The money raised from sin taxes (taxes on tobacco, liquor,
pornography, etc) does not go into the health care system, at least not
directly. And the reason our health care costs in the US are as high as they are
has more to do with the litigious nature of American society. Our medical costs
are severely inflated to pay the severely inflated malpractice insurance premiums
doctors and hospitals are forced to pay because we like to sue everybody.
--
Nothing can kill the Grimace.
Mathew Krull
> In article <20010905191042...@mb-bg.news.cs.com>, Tyler
> Durden <tlerd...@cs.comusesoap> writes
> >What it means is that Reed
> >Richards can't be shown smoking a pipe anymore, and that the Thing, Nick Fury,
> >and Logan won't be shown with cigars.
>
> And when was the last time we saw any of the above smoking in their
> own titles?
>
Wolverine, in the current issue released just today, is shown smoking on pages 1
and 2. He is asked to put out his cigar by a flight attendant.
Mathew Krull
> Predator wrote:
> >
> > But in Ultimate X-men they regularly refer to Wolverine's smoking, and that
> > he has Left the mansion smelling like an ashtray. Is Marvel saying that it
> > is okay to smoke while away from prying eyes but wrong in person. I mean
> > ult X-men is a new book and Marvel do not appear to be holding onto this
> > policy. Also, does this policy go for the new MAX series, intended for
> > adults, and not to be seen by the kids??? I don't know if Marvel will hold
> > onto this policy, and can't see it lasting.
> >
> > Pred
> >
>
> Because as of that issue, the policy had not been enforced yet.
>
>
Impossible, considering that the policy has been in place longer than the entire
Ultimate line has been in existence.
Polaris
Mathew Krull wrote:
>
>
> Impossible, considering that the policy has been in place longer than the entire
> Ultimate line has been in existence.
But around that time, everybody was smoking and the policy was pretty
much ignored. It's only now they're actually enforcing said policy.
--
Polaris
--
Legend says only virgins can see unicorns. You pretend you can't see it.
Mathew Krull
> No more so than the post I was following up to, I guess. I've seen a
> many of threads go off topic, so it was probably only natural that this
> one would turn into a "anti-smoking" / "pro-smoking" snipe.
>
> Needless to say, I'll be more aware of where I start these discussions and
> attempt to keep them on topic.
>
OK, let's get this back on topic. While I don't agree with the smoking issue,
the other posters have brought up interesting points that you have ignored. Why
is it OK to expose children to mindless violence, yet somehow not OK to show
people smoking? The main theme of most super-hero comics, to paraphrase Gerard
Jones, is that there is no problem that can't be solved by a fist fight.
Violence seems to be the first, last, and only solution most super-heroes seem
to use when confronted with just about any situation. Marvel is really send a
mixed message to kids when they try quick fixes like this. "We'll make comics
more kid friendly by not having any of our heroes smoke. It's still OK to have
the Punisher kill 6 or 7 people every issue so long as he doesn't light up
afterwards." As bad as smoking is, violence amongst teenagers is worse.
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
>"Ronald J. Rickard Jr." wrote:
>
>> No more so than the post I was following up to, I guess. I've seen a
>> many of threads go off topic, so it was probably only natural that this
>> one would turn into a "anti-smoking" / "pro-smoking" snipe.
>>
>> Needless to say, I'll be more aware of where I start these discussions and
>> attempt to keep them on topic.
>>
>
>OK, let's get this back on topic. While I don't agree with the smoking issue,
>the other posters have brought up interesting points that you have ignored. Why
>is it OK to expose children to mindless violence, yet somehow not OK to show
>people smoking?
Because that is how society is. Seriously, society accepts violence in
our entertainment, but not smoking. I don't make the rules. As I
mentioned, it shows that Marvel is keeping up with the times, which
alot of people seem to applaud, until it is something they don't agree
with. Violence is acceptable, cigarettes are not. That is true in
America today.
When we can answer why this is the acceptable practice for TV, movies,
etc. then we'll have an answer to this question. I don't have an answer.
Do I wish it was different? Of course, but all I can do is complain about
it, turn the TV channel, take my kids to movies that are not violent,
etc. Until everyone has this view and approach, I suspect violence is
here to stay.
>The main theme of most super-hero comics, to paraphrase Gerard
>Jones, is that there is no problem that can't be solved by a fist fight.
>Violence seems to be the first, last, and only solution most super-heroes seem
>to use when confronted with just about any situation. Marvel is really send a
>mixed message to kids when they try quick fixes like this. "We'll make comics
>more kid friendly by not having any of our heroes smoke. It's still OK to have
>the Punisher kill 6 or 7 people every issue so long as he doesn't light up
>afterwards." As bad as smoking is, violence amongst teenagers is worse.
Is it Marvel sending this message or all of society? Again, Marvel is
not exclusive in showing violence, TV shows have become increasingly
violent over the years and Marvel is just following the social norm.
I don't have a problem with Marvel following social norms. I'd probably
have a bigger problem if they didn't. Change how society feels about
violence, and Marvel will change as well.
RJRJR
Ronald J. Rickard Jr.
Polaris <polar...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
>Mathew Krull wrote:
>>
>>
>> Impossible, considering that the policy has been in place longer than the entire
>> Ultimate line has been in existence.
>
>But around that time, everybody was smoking and the policy was pretty
>much ignored. It's only now they're actually enforcing said policy.
>
>--
>Polaris
Nope, they actually enforced it a while back. Marvel just went through
some rough periods and Editor-In-Chief (EIC) changes that resulted in the
edict being forgotten. The new EIC is doing what EICs are suppose to
do, which is present guidelines for his publications to follow. He feels
strongly about the issue and so he is going to enforce his decision.
RJRJR
Todd Kogutt: Scavenger
role models to not smoke (Quesada points to Wolverine specificly), I'd
just as soon as Marvel not publish stories where those same role models
look towards his friends' marriages breaking up so they can bag the
wife.
---SCAVENGER
Billy Bissette
> "Ronald J. Rickard Jr." wrote:
>
> > No more so than the post I was following up to, I guess. I've seen a
> > many of threads go off topic, so it was probably only natural that this
> > one would turn into a "anti-smoking" / "pro-smoking" snipe.
> >
> > Needless to say, I'll be more aware of where I start these discussions and
> > attempt to keep them on topic.
> >
>
> OK, let's get this back on topic. While I don't agree with the smoking issue,
> the other posters have brought up interesting points that you have ignored. Why
> is it OK to expose children to mindless violence, yet somehow not OK to show
> people smoking?
Perhaps people are slightly smarter than you give credit for...
(Yes, its hard for me to even say that...)
In other words, in general smart enough to know that gunning down
people *isn't* a viable or worthwhile solution, but see smoking as
an activity and not as a crime (or even an anti-social activity).
As for visibility of smoking, its not just its presence in single
areas at times, but instead its pervading presence all across media
and advertising.
Though I still believe one of the worst things anti-smoking campaigns
did were the American Lung Association's 'smoking damage is mostly
reversable, so quit now' ads about 10 years ago... Those silly ads
alone *caused* people I know to start smoking, as they figured they'd
get the 'benefits' of smoking, and then quit before they even reached
middle age and wouldn't be the worse for wear...
Billy Bissette
Belascoamo
>STD's and causes unwanted pregnancy.
Oh, sure. Because adults don't have the same problems with premarital sex.
Which psychological problems? BTW, STD's and unwanted pregnancy come hand in
hand with any un-protected sex, regardless of age.
> smoking causes maybe 1 out of 3 people
>to develop some form of illness about 20 years down the line.
And I suppose you have information to back this up? Granted, the last time I
checked was two years ago and the research in this field is updated almost
every other month, but IIRC it was 1 out of 4 people developed diseases (colds,
cancers, asthma, and emphezema) within 5 years. Not to mention what it does to
your body in the meantime. Have you seen the picture of the average smoker's
lung? Thats definetely enough to keep me from smoking.
>and often
>those illnesses are prevented by simply quiting at the time of early
>detection.
Well, you could be smoking for twenty years without going to a doctor. Off the
top of my head, I know three people who smoke regularly and do not keep regular
doctors appointments. I'm pretty sure if you're pregnant or walking around with
ganorrhea you'll be at the doctor's office in no time flat.
>masterbation gives you orgamams too. and that satisfying smoke after wanking
>it is just icing. lol
No offense, but I think you might be a little bit biased on your opinion.
Premarital sex dates back for a long, long, long time. Its a natural human
response to sexual urges. Cigarrettes are something that have been, IMHO,
forced upon us for the purpose of making someone rich. I really don't see the
purpose of inhaling hot, smoky ash into your body.
I'd just like to throw my two cents in about the whole No Smoking Hero's
Policy. Its complete bull. I cant understand why the marvel characters are not
allowed to swear, smoke, or stay dead but its absolutely ok to commit genocide
whenever it strikes their fancy. Great politcal correctness, guys.
Polaris
"Ronald J. Rickard Jr." wrote:
>
>
> Nope, they actually enforced it a while back. Marvel just went through
> some rough periods and Editor-In-Chief (EIC) changes that resulted in the
> edict being forgotten. The new EIC is doing what EICs are suppose to
> do, which is present guidelines for his publications to follow. He feels
> strongly about the issue and so he is going to enforce his decision.
>
Huh, okay. I didn't know that. I guess the edict must have been *really*
forgotten...
Pat ONeill
>If a writer writes a Fantastic Four story,
>and the artist draws it, and they have Ben smoking a cigar or Reed smoking a
>pipe, and Quesada sends the art back to be redone so that they aren't
>smoking,
>that's censorship.
No, it's not. It's editorial and publisher prerogative. They own the
characters. They own the publications.
It is no more "censorship" than it would be if an editor changed British
spelling to American spelling.
Best, Pat
Gary Majdanek
> Actually, the problem is that, unlike the UK, we in the US do not have
socialized
> medicine. The money raised from sin taxes (taxes on tobacco, liquor,
> pornography, etc) does not go into the health care system, at least not
> directly. And the reason our health care costs in the US are as high as
they are
> has more to do with the litigious nature of American society. Our medical
costs
> are severely inflated to pay the severely inflated malpractice insurance
premiums
> doctors and hospitals are forced to pay because we like to sue everybody.
I agree that this is a clear distinction. I guess the argument here would be
that tax revenue directly offsets costs to the National Health Service.
Whether the money is actually directed there is another matter of course....
Gary
Robert Carnegie
>
> in the UK, incidentally, we do have tobacco companies of our own,
I don't think that we grow our own, though. Doesn't it all come from
America, grown by American voters?
Given that most superheroes are supposed to be ultra-athletes of
some kind, and they mostly need to breathe oxygen, for them to smoke
is just silly. My boss smokes, and he plays football for fun.
I really _should_ make the time to go and watch him. It must be
hilarious to see.
Anthony
> I wonder if we'll get an explanation for why some of the Marvel characters
> gave up smoking in the books themselves. I doubt it, but it could be
> interesting. I'm sure a writer or two wouldn't mind making a joke or
> two about it.
>
> RJRJR
Maybe "Anti-Tobacco Man - Herald of Galactus" will come to earth and
destroy the world supply of tobacco because Galactus wants a snack
(but just found out he's allergic to the pesky plant.) There will be
a mighty battle with all the world's heroes and villains teaming up
resulting in the defeat of Galactus but also resulting in the
destruction of all forms of tobacco. (of course, the epilogue will
show a mysterious figure known only as "Bluntman" rising from the
ashes, laughing maniacally...)
Matt Adler
news:wVVl7.48150$Xv3.8...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> In article <zpVl7.4472$tb.10...@news02.optonline.net>,
> Matt Adler <mad...@ic.sunysb.edu> wrote:
> >"Ronald J. Rickard Jr." <rjrjr@yavin> wrote:
> >
> >> <Sarcasm on>
> >>
> >> You're right. The public is ignorant and we should *force* them to
accept
> >> smoking. After all, it has been around for so long and so what if
people
> >> die from it, it creates a burden for our health care systems, and is a
> >> disgusting habit. But a handful of us cannot break the habit, because
> >> we are weak, so we should make others suffer with us.
> >>
> >> They are stepping all over our rights. Let's fight this and make them
> >> see the error of their ways.
> >>
> >> <Sarcasm off>
> >
> >I'm interested to hear how the above relates to Marvel's declaration of
> >no-smoking in their comics.
>
>
> No more so than the post I was following up to, I guess.
My post directly addressed the question of why it is apparently okay to kill
and maim in Marvel Comics, but not to smoke. If we are worrying about
negative influences on children, I would think violence would be of greater
concern. The fact that TPTB at Marvel are addressing the latter and not the
former, is what strikes me as hypocrisy. It's a cheap way for them to score
points with the parents, by saying they are sending "positive, wholesome"
messages. Meanwhile, Wolverine continues to hack and slash people to bits,
and the Punisher continues to blow people away. But they won't smoke. Yep,
good, clean, family fun. The issue of whether smoking should be permitted in
real life however, isn't relevant in RACMU.
Matt Adler
> >OK, let's get this back on topic. While I don't agree with the smoking
issue,
> >the other posters have brought up interesting points that you have
ignored. Why
> >is it OK to expose children to mindless violence, yet somehow not OK to
show
> >people smoking?
>
>
> Because that is how society is.
Ah, the "That's how it is. Don't question it. Just accept it" school of
thought. A lot of good has come from that over the course of human history.
Seriously, society accepts violence in
> our entertainment, but not smoking. I don't make the rules. As I
> mentioned, it shows that Marvel is keeping up with the times, which
> alot of people seem to applaud, until it is something they don't agree
> with. Violence is acceptable, cigarettes are not. That is true in
> America today.
>
> When we can answer why this is the acceptable practice for TV, movies,
> etc. then we'll have an answer to this question.
Perhaps the answer is "because the people doing it are hypocrites, and
everyone else just goes along with it."
> I don't have a problem with Marvel following social norms. I'd probably
> have a bigger problem if they didn't.
So, a social norm, no matter how little sense it makes, should always be
adhered to?
Tyler Durden
>destroy the world supply of tobacco because Galactus wants a snack
>(but just found out he's allergic to the pesky plant.) There will be
>a mighty battle with all the world's heroes and villains teaming up
>resulting in the defeat of Galactus but also resulting in the
>destruction of all forms of tobacco. (of course, the epilogue will
>show a mysterious figure known only as "Bluntman" rising from the
>ashes, laughing maniacally...)
I can see the new ads now, since villains will still smoke:
Captain America: Hey kids, look at the Red Skull over there, smoking away. You
know, in the 40's, smokers like him were responsible for the deaths of 6
millions people. Don't be like the Nazis, kids, don't smoke.
Nick Fury: That's right, Cap. Smoking's the depth of evil.
Captain America: But, Nick, didn't you used to smoke?
Nick Fury: No, Cap, that wasn't me. That was an evil Life Model Decoy.
Remember kids, smokers are soulless automotons which only look human.
Captain America: That's right. The only organization more evil than Hydra is
R.J. Reynolds.
....give it a couple years. The bastion of America's freedom and liberty will
be denying us all our freedom to enjoy a good cigar.
Tyler Durden
"Use Soap"
coondawg
coondawg
all the foolish rules and fda guides unconstitutional, last i checked the
constitution didn't alow interference in what i put in my pipe. . .ahh well
liberals ignore the constitution, conservitives pay lip service to it, and
libertarians are too zany to do us anygood. ahhh well
> Oh Boy
>> another place in California). The thing that struck me though, was not
that
> America may be dangerous because it may, or may not, allow people to smoke
0
> it was the fact that there seemed to be to many guns. OK - perhaps not as
> addictive, but I would suggest more dangerous. I'd been in the states 6
days
> before I got mugged at gun point - they didn't get away with too much, but
I
> figure that they'd have got nothing if they'd come at me with a lit fag.
And
> yet, the same society thinks that, due to an ancient amendment to it's
> conststituion, it's functioning OK when children go through metal
detectors
> on their way to their place of education. (I know it's rare - but it does
> occur).
> Of course, a few days ago I watched Question Time (not sure of the US
> equivalent - kinda like Politcally Incorrect without the humour),
no humor? then it IS EXACTLY like politically incorect.
coondawg
> the 40s/50s, the answer would be yes, comic publishers have an influence
> on the way people, especially children, act. After all, we had the
> Senate hearings, Wertham, etc. I'd argue there is a vocal minority of
> people today who would make the same argument, that comics[, video games,
> and movies] do have an influence on children. But I suspect the majority
> of people today are fairly educated about cause and effect and would say
> that comics do not have an effect on people, again especially children.
>
> A well thought out post, by the way.
>
> RJRJR
>
on the other hand, all media has an effect on people. or there wouldnt be
merchendising, adverts etc. . . all media is selling a point of view at the
least, a lifestyle at the most.
so there is influence wether intended or not.
coondawg
"Todd Kogutt: Scavenger" <to...@not.toddkogutt.com> wrote in message
news:060920012350513091%to...@not.toddkogutt.com...
Paul O'Brien
writes
>
>
>Wolverine, in the current issue released just today, is shown smoking on pages 1
>and 2. He is asked to put out his cigar by a flight attendant.
And then goes on to say he was thinking of quitting anyway, I see.
What's the betting that in three months time, somebody does a story
where Wolverine comments that his superhuman senses are so much
sharper now?
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
ARTICLE 10 - http://www.ninthart.com
Brevity is the sister of talent.
Paul O'Brien
>
>Again, not sure if it applies within the US, but you may recollect a recent
>news story about a US tobacco company claiming that it was good for some
>Eastern European countries economy. It was pretty crassly
>done...nonetheless.....
Ironically, I remember that argument first being put in an episode
of Yes Prime Minister, as a joke. Only the tobacco industry would
take it seriously as a genuine reason to encourage smoking. ("All
those lovely taxes and the savings in pensions more than cancel
out the health care costs!")
Michael Alan Chary
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3B983448...@cfu.net>, Mathew Krull <mkr...@cfu.net>
>writes
>>
>>
>>Wolverine, in the current issue released just today, is shown smoking
>on pages 1
>>and 2. He is asked to put out his cigar by a flight attendant.
>
>And then goes on to say he was thinking of quitting anyway, I see.
>
>What's the betting that in three months time, somebody does a story
>where Wolverine comments that his superhuman senses are so much
>sharper now?
Actualy, they need to do a story where he's even more unpleasant to be
around. I've been around some people while they were trying to quit, and
I've been tempted to go buy them a pack myself on occasion.
--
The CFV for the removal of several rec.arts.comics groups has been posted to
news.announce.newgroups. Please vote. If you want to keep them, vote to keep
them. If you want get rid of them, vote to remove. If you don't, care but
you're sick of people whining about voter apathy, vote abstain.
Tyler Durden
>around. I've been around some people while they were trying to quit, and
>I've been tempted to go buy them a pack myself on occasion.
Actually, Logan could probably quit fairly easily. Why? He smokes cigars.
This is something that hasn't been addressed yet, really. The only guy in the
Marvel Universe that I can think of who smokes cigarettes is Ben Urich. Thing,
Fury, and Logan all smoke cigars. Reed Richards smokes a pipe. What's the
difference you ask? There's several, as someone who smokes the latter two on
occasion but not cigarettes...
1) You don't inhale cigar and pipe smoke. Sure you inhale some, but they're
not designed to be sucked into the lung. Cigar and pipe tobacco is flavored,
and designed to have a pleasant aroma and flavor in your mouth. Not inhaling
means that cigars and pipe smoking doesn't do all that much in terms of risk of
emphysema and lung cancer, though it does still give you a greater likelihood
of mouth cancer, tooth loss, and the like. This is why I brush my teeth after
enjoying a good cigar and a brandy.
2) Cigars and pipe tobacco have next to no nicotein, particularly compared to
cigarettes or chewing tobacco, which have been designed by cigarette
manufacturers to hook customers by delivering as much nicotein as possible
straight into the blood stream. Skoal even has fiberglass shreds in the
tobacco to slice your lip, and get the nicotein into your bloodstream faster
for a better buzz. Cigars and pipe tobacco are inhaled moist, generally only
into the mouth, and have no nicotein added. This means they are far, far less
addictive, beyond enjoying the flavor, but by that token, ice cream and a good
steak are addictive.
3) The modelling aspect that's the crux of the issue. Show me the kid who
started smoking a pipe because they wanted to be like Reed Richards? Show me
the kid who started smoking fine cigars to be like Logan? Doesn't happen. And
cigars and pipes don't automatically correspond to cigarettes, as you know if
you've smoked the former. When I've lit a pipe in some public place, I've
never had a single complaint. People like the aroma. Its soothing. Light a
cigarette in the same place around the same people and see what happens.
Tyler Durden
"Use Soap"
Isaac
wrote:
>
>I agree that this is a clear distinction. I guess the argument here would be
>that tax revenue directly offsets costs to the National Health Service.
>Whether the money is actually directed there is another matter of course....
>
Not that it means anything concerning Marvels policy, but the tax revenue
thing is a meaningless argument. Many of the diseases caused by smoking
are life shortening and incurable. Just covering the medical bills
doesn't even begin to cover the health impact of smoking, or even the
monetary cost to society of the health problems associated with smoking.
I'm personally glad that Marvel heroes won't be smoking, but I'm not
in favor of an editorial mandate to make it so.
Isaac
Gary Majdanek
Ronald J. Rickard Jr. <rjrjr@yavin> wrote in message
news:k2Wl7.48155$Xv3.8...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> That is an interesting question. I suspect that if we were closer to
> the 40s/50s, the answer would be yes, comic publishers have an influence
> on the way people, especially children, act. After all, we had the
> Senate hearings, Wertham, etc. I'd argue there is a vocal minority of
> people today who would make the same argument, that comics[, video games,
> and movies] do have an influence on children. But I suspect the majority
> of people today are fairly educated about cause and effect and would say
> that comics do not have an effect on people, again especially children.
>
> A well thought out post, by the way.
>
> RJRJR
Thanks Ron.... I appreciate that we may be viewing the issue from different
sides of the fence, but it's nice to know that an opposing view can be
acknowledged so politely.
I think I'll leave the debate there - I think both views have had a fair and
complete airing - Marvels decision is ultimately there own, and I know that
I won't change it. That was never am aim, I just feel that sometimes you
have to ensure that if you have a protest, you raise it.
Best wishes
Gary (Hoping that they don't take on alcohol next)