Is second-hand smoke a health hazard? If you think it is, why? For most people, the belief is based in propaganda. Propaganda is the systematic method to quickly spread a point of view through the use of partial information, appeals to emotion over intellect, and creating an atmosphere where opposing dialogue has no voice. If you think that there can be no argument against the idea that second-hand smoke is a serious health danger, you prove the point. If there is no room left for debate, or consideration, it’s propaganda. It’s not just smoking, or pot, or a healthy diet. Propaganda stretches far and deep into our lives.
I can remember the ads admonishing us not to be a “Litter Bug.” (As if bugs did anything but clean away debris!) The anti-litter campaigns were propaganda. They didn’t tell us not to consume to reduce real waste, they told us how to hide it all from our view.
I also remember the anti-pot ads that first told us that pot made people crazy. When that attempt failed, the message changed to pot leads to heroine. Okay, that failed too. Then came the notion that people who smoke pot are destined to become underachievers. Plenty of people who smoke pot buy into that one. Lots of company executives check their wage employees for dope use (including pot), while toking fairly regularly themselves. Personally, I think the age for pot smoking is between 19 and 23 years old, after you’re old enough to really decide for yourself about taking on a habit and before you can afford to buy quality whiskey and cigars. I don’t know what the latest pot propaganda is; I’m no longer their target audience.
But for me, the most irritating propaganda ever underway is this notion that America is a great country and we are all so lucky because we have full access to information and a free and open election to choose whichever leaders we want. We always have the same two choices. Way back when, the League of Women Voters was even thrown out of the debate game because the two parties didn’t want to answer questions they hadn’t prepared for, and neither saw any point in letting other parties in on the press coverage—a third party candidate might say something that sounded good to the people. So, we are free to vote for whomever we want, but unlike other democratic countries, with several national parties all with a voice, we get to choose between vanilla and French vanilla. I swear to God, I’ve never been able to tell the two apart.
But, what do you think?