News headlines and advertisements that have us scratching our heads. When did Propaganda become trendy again? hurt


Hey guys, it’s me Dawn again. I am glad to have you here today! I hope that you have had a chance to check out a few of the blog posts here, and I hope you have enjoyed them.

Today’s post is one that has my blood pressure slightly elevated. I understand that the electronic cigarette industry is a hot topic at the moment. I also understand that with these products being such a hot and controversial topic that e-cigs will naturally be in the headlines a lot. What I do not understand is with all the very newsworthy stuff to report on regarding e-cigarettes why do we see headlines with the words electronic cigarette that are only designed to make them sound as bad as possible? Even when the story has very little to do with Electronic cigarettes they throw the words in there just to what, make things more hot topic-ish? What it feels like to me is good old fashioned propaganda.

What’s the definition of Propaganda?

Well according to google:


  1. derogatory:  Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
    Okay so lets look at a few of these headlines, and then you decide if they fit with that definition.
    Alright the first headline is one that really got me going, I will explain why after you see the headline here: FHP: Hit-and-run driver distracted by e-cig before killing teen cyclist”  

Alright, we can all agree that distracted driving is bad whether on your phone or petting your puppy. Distracted driving causes issues and is dangerous. But here is why this particular article gets my dander up. About 2 years ago right outside my own home, my daughter got rear ended by a driver who had looked down for “just a second” in order to pet his new puppy. Now I was not in the car, but from my living room I heard the crash. Imagine my horror as a mother when I stepped outside to see what was going on only to see my 2 children laying hurt in the road and our family car totaled.

Heart stopping, devastating terror. That is what I felt. But did I blame the dog? No. The distracted driver was for sure the focus of my anger, and I can tell you I was very angry. The man hit my children going 60 miles an hour and never even touched the break. He simply was not paying attention! He was a 100% at fault not the dog. He hit my girls so hard that the back seat became the front seat, then he had the nerve to sit with his head down on the side of the road not once checking on my girls. All this and I still never blamed the dog. What distracted him was not my issue. The fact that he was distracted was. (BTW, My girls had some minor injuries, but I am happy to say they are just fine. )what-do-you-think

So my question is why would we make a headline that talks about WHAT distracted this driver? Why villainize electronic cigarettes in a situation where they are irrelevant to the story? I think a better headline may be “Distracted driver kills teen cyclist in a hit and run tragedy”. What do you think?


This next one is not a headline, it’s an ad that I have seen floating around the internet. Look at it here, then I will tell you my reason for classifying this as propaganda.


Alright, let’s get something perfectly clear. E-cigarettes are not a medicine to counteract the effects of smoking burning tobacco. When people and customers talk about feeling better after making the switch to e-cigarettes it is NOT because they now use electronic cigarettes. The people who talk about a better quality of life do so because they are no longer putting the 600 ingredients, 4000 chemicals and tar into their body via burning tobacco. They would see the same or even better health results regardless of how they choose to put down the burning tobacco. The healthiest thing for your lungs is to not inhale ANYTHING into them. If an e-cigarette company claims to heal you or make you better, fire them. There is NO evidence that e-cigarettes are a health product. There is evidence however that getting off burning tobacco is the best health decision that you can make, regardless of the method.

All that being said however, let’s focus on this picture. So what it basically says is that she is a burning tobacco smoker, never stepped away from burning tobacco, and then was surprised when burning tobacco effected her lungs and health. Er, uhm. hmmm, of course if you stay smoking burning tobacco you will still have the negative effects that come along with smoking burning tobacco. Duh!!! This post reads to me like someone looking for their 5 minutes of fame and attention for a bad personal choice. I think that better wording for this post may be “I should have switched completely off of burning tobacco in time, maybe then my lung would not have collapsed. Don’t wait until it’s too late, make the switch!”


This next one is so stupid that it hurt my head and barely deserves comment, but I am going to anyway. Call it bloggers prerogative.


“OMG, Really Becky?”  That’s literately what I think when I see this. Like I said it is barely worth comment so I will share only a little about the ingredient I think she is referring to:

Propylene Glycol

Whats it in
Basically when antifreeze was hurting and killing pets and children the antifreeze industry was asked to find another ingredient to make their products more SAFE for the consumers. What SAFE ingredient did they pick? PG, and they picked it most likely because its been safely used in medicines as a delivery agent for decades. It is also classified as GRAS, Generally Recognized as Safe, by the FDA. So the FDA considered it GRAS until electronic cigarettes came on the playing field? Why? Did it change? Or is this just more Propaganda?


There are so many of these types of things online that I could go on for days. In an effort to respect your time we will only cover one more today. If you have time though take a peek around the internet to see just how much bull crap is being lobbed at the electronic cigarette industry without any reason other than to spread propaganda. (Remember that definition we talked about…..) Why would they do that? Well if I had to guess, I would say the fact that when people switch off burning tobacco the government looses a ton of tax dollars and big pharmacy looses a ton of revenue. That is just my own thoughts on the why though.

This last one is not one. By that I mean, we see it all the time in a TON of headlines and news reports. The statement in question? “There is No research on electronic cigarettes, we don’t know what’s in them!”  I mean really?


Not only is there a ton of research available on electronic cigarettes, there is even research on the research taking place. I can find around 500 random e-cig studies and research papers just by typing the words “e-cigarette studies” into Google, and that’s without trying very hard. There is so much research that I recently did a blog that went over some of that research and was designed to help potential e-cig users find the facts. If you are interested in checking it out Click Here.  I will warn you however that since there is SO MUCH available research online, that the blog was a long one. Nearly 1,700 words in fact. For there being a lack of research, there sure is a lot of research to sort through and chat about. Just saying.


So like I said, I could go on forever about all this, but I won’t. Instead I will thank you very much for taking the time to listen to me ramble on here. Hopefully you will leave with more information than you came here with. If you have any questions or thoughts on things you would like to see me blog on drop me an e-mail to I love hearing from you! If you are interested in making the switch to A Clean Cigarette brand electronic cigarettes, check out Thank you again for visiting me and have a great day!!





Leave a comment

Comments will be approved before showing up.