I can't understand such statements, and it bothers me - not the statements themselves, but rather the seeming necessity of them. Why do people assume that I might be promoting living like a junkie if I write a story about one?
I won't go into why people assume "gay propaganda" or such things - this is nothing but stupid. What I can't put my mind off is the idea that you promote everything you write about. It can't be ideas of the character - for some reason, they must be yours, even if they fit perfectly into the ideas of the world you're telling about. If a videogame allows you to shoot someone, it's being branded as "propaganda of violence"; if a cartoon portrays someone shooting someone else, the same brand is applied soon after its air time.
At the same times, the stories of classics are often prone to display darker sides of humanity - greed, murder, lust, disdain and so on. Those are the same stories I've never heard being referred to as any sort of propaganda. In fact, I've barely ever seen them being referred to as anything other than the highest class of literature or cinema. It might be because I wasn't looking hard enough, but the point remains: there's a certain level of double standards when it comes to art.
What's the deal here? Why do old stories get some slack cut while those closer to contemporary are being so thoroughly branded?