Submissive life

Loading...

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Twelve Tips For The new, Virgin, Novice Heterosexual Submissive Woman ( The new Wife)

Author: Laura Y. With a lot of help from Master Gunter.

Ok! You are busting to do it!...Let me guess. You're a wife, you're heterosexual, and you keep having strange, disturbing, recurring, and intense fantasies of a powerful, masterful man having his way with you. Perhaps he tears off  your clothes and takes you. Perhaps he throws you over his knee and gives you a long, hard spanking. Perhaps he ties you naked and spread-eagled to a bed and proceeds to alternately tease and torture you for hours. Perhaps he locks his collar around your neck and orders you to kneel at his feet -- and you do, both fearing and loving every second of it.

Have these fantasies become so intense and recurring that they make up almost every sexual fantasy you have? Have they become the centerpiece of your thinking when you masturbate? Have you looked through personal ads searching for the ones from men that mention bondage, spanking, and related practices, longing but not daring to answer them? Have you thought of asking a man to help you explore your fantasies? Do you worry that if you mention these desires to a man that you might end up being beaten or even raped? Do you wonder how on Earth you are ever going to reconcile your deeply submissive desires with your distinctly feminist beliefs? Do you have the increasingly strong feeling that if you don't act upon these feelings soon then you will go insane with frustration?

If many of these thoughts and feelings seem familiar, then it's likely that you have a erotically submissive side and that you're either ready or nearly ready to explore this aspect of yourself. If this is the case then, as the saying goes, I've got some good news and I've got some bad news -- and I've got some advice.

Before I go further, please let me introduce myself. My name is Laura. I'm a heterosexual, Caucasian/Indian mixed female who currently living in Maryland and is in a stable, loving marriage to a wonderful Master. I have been exploring the practices associated with erotic domination and submission since 1998, am  exclusively -- submissive in my own desires.
During that time, I have probably attended over 100 SM-related lectures, demonstrations, discussion groups, parties, and related events. I have also given presentations and performances at SM groups. For more than ten years, I have advised, mentored, trained, and otherwise assisted many novice submissive women, and many other types of people, during their explorations into the realities of what is often called sadomasochism -- SM (or, sometimes, BDSM) for short.

OK. That's enough about me. Now, as I was saying about your situation, I've got some good news and I've got some bad news -- and I've got some advice. The following is not intended as a comprehensive guide, but it should help you get off to a good start.

First, the good news: It is quite possible for you to explore your fantasies in a healthy and constructive manner, without in any way diminishing who you are as a human being and without compromising your feminist beliefs in the slightest. It is also quite possible for you to find a man who is a good, decent, highly ethical, and definitely non-abusive person to help you explore this aspect of yourself. There is even a fairly good possibility that you will end up in an ongoing relationship with such a man, and feel delighted that you did. I know of many submissive women who found their "Master Right."

Now for the bad news: A few seriously "bad apples" lurk in the SM "barrel." There is no approved screening and training program that would-be masters must successfully complete. There are no continuing education or licensing requirements. There is no malpractice insurance. Any idiot can proclaim himself a "master." A jerk in his late forties who tried to tie up a girlfriend once when he was sixteen may claim "I have over thirty years of real-life experience."

Thus, it can be difficult, or even impossible, for a novice submissive woman (such as you) to quickly tell the difference between a wonderful prince and a horrid frog. Therefore, it is also possible for you to encounter a "master" who is unethical, manipulative, exploitative, abusive, and an utterly horrible person for you to open up to in the way that a submissive can open up to a dominant. Getting involved with such a man can leave you heavily damaged -- both emotionally and physically.
Unfortunately, I also know of some submissive women who got involved with "Master Wrong" or even "Master Nightmare." Most recovered. Some didn't.

Now for the advice: What you will be doing, in a very real sense, is exploring a wilderness. Therefore it makes a great deal of sense to approach your explorations into SM in much the same way that you would approach your explorations into any other type of wilderness. This wilderness, like all others, contains large amounts of both beauty and danger. Do yourself a big favor and never forget those two extremely important facts.

OK, Ms. Explorer, how might you approach that wilderness?

Tip One: Study and otherwise prepare before you approach it.

In one way, you are lucky to approach the SM wilderness at this time, because it has been already been extensively explored, and many people are willing to share their own findings. While universal agreement does not exist regarding what is and what is not appropriate SM, in reality there is actually fairly close consensus among most experienced practitioners about most points. Most explorers have come to highly similar conclusions and recommendations, and many are quite willing to share this information with interested others. In particular, there are several very good books on the subject, a large number of excellent SM educational organizations (most large cities have at least one), and a wealth of quality information on the internet. You will find references to some of the better resources at the end of this article.

Also, again, as with approaching any other wilderness, it would also be prudent to do a bit of preparing for emergencies before heading out. Many SM people have done things like taken a first aid/CPR class, had an HIV test done, and gotten shots to protect themselves against exposure to Hepatitis A and B. Additionally, do you know what a "safeword" is and how a "silent alarm" works? Find out before you play with someone in private.

Tip Two: Get some perspective.

There is no such thing as the National Bureau of Sadomasochistic Standards and Practices that issues rulings about what is and what is not "real" SM. Therefore, people must work out between themselves what does and what does not work for them. On the other hand, there is actually fairly close consensus among experienced practitioners regarding the broad outlines of what is and what is not appropriate. That being the case, it would be smart to seek out a variety of such opinions.

More to the point, it would be very dumb of you to depend upon only one source of information, no matter how "convincing" or "authoritative" that (usually male) source of information tries to appear. Try to read at least three different books, written by three different authors, on the subject. Look over a number of different web sites. Attend as many different SM-related presentations, by as many different presenters, as you can.

Tip Three: Time is your best and most important friend.

Rushing into any sort of wilderness is a Bad Idea. Take your time. Look over the landscape. Talk with the natives. Talk with lots of different natives. Observe their colorful native costumes. (Many of these natives look far more scary than they really are. Don't let the sight of those whips and chains frighten you too much.) Venture into their shops and look over the goods for sale. (Don't feel too bad if you can't immediately figure out how some of those goods are used.) In particular, don't get heavily and exclusively involved with any one particular "native" too quickly.

Key Point: The seriously dangerous, abusive, predators usually shun the mainstream SM community because they know they would quickly be discovered and ostracized. Therefore, they lurk on the fringes of the community, trying to "pick off" the novice submissive female, whose low level of knowledge and uninformed perspective can make her dangerously vulnerable. By the way, guess what you are?

Tip Four: You may get more attention than you can easily handle.

You are a female who is entering a territory in which it is common for there to be more men than women, and many of these men are looking for a woman to do SM with. (In common SM parlance, to do SM with someone is to "play" with them. This is not meant in any sort of diminishing or trivializing way, but rather in a manner similar to how one might "play" tennis or bridge with a partner.)

Anyway, there tend to be more men than women in the "relatively heterosexual" sections of the SM community (there are men-only and women-only sections as well) and many of these men are looking for women to be either occasional or ongoing "play" partners. (A fair number of women and couples are looking for female play partners too.) Therefore, you may get scores of polite offers -- and, unfortunately, a few not-so-polite offers -- for coffee dates or other get-togethers. There is nothing necessarily bad or wrong with such offers but, again, go
slowly and don't get heavily involved with any one particular man (or woman, or couple) too quickly. In particular, be relatively quick to accept personal information from others, but be relatively slow about giving out personal information about yourself to others such as your telephone number, where you work, your email address, and so forth.

Given that the competition for new females can occasionally be intense (by the way, don't let me scare you too much on this point), keep in mind that the person who shows the most aggressiveness in meeting you may not be the best person for you to become involved with. Indeed, and sadly, the converse is often more likely to be true. The nicer guys often hold back out of courtesy and respect while the creeps thrust themselves into your face.

Keep your options open. Try to meet and have conversations with many different men. It is important that you not allow any one particular man (or woman, or couple) to monopolize your time and attention. Remember that the slightly more reserved people are often the better people to become involved with.

(By the way, once you've gotten some knowledge and perspective, meeting prospective partners via personal ads can be useful, as there will be no direct competition when you talk on the phone or meet at a public restaurant.)

Also, the more "known" a man is, the safer he is likely to be. As a rule, a man who has been known in his local SM community for over a year is probably relatively safe (although exceptions exist). A lesser known man is more questionable. Again, take your time.

Another Key Point: You are under absolutely no obligation to act in a submissive manner towards a man until after the two of you have negotiated that -- and done so as equals. If some jerk tries to insist that you call him "Sir" or "Master," or tries to give you orders, or touches you in an overly familiar way, or says that you're not being properly submissive when you haven't previously agreed to be submissive specifically to him, your "creep alarm" should start ringing loudly -- and you should head elsewhere, fast.

(By the way, a friend of mine who is a very experienced submissive woman has come to believe that there is a strong inverse relationship between how good a dominant a man is and how quickly he brings up to subject of fellatio.)

On the other hand, a low-key, friendly, courteous approach by a dominant is a very positive sign. Good-quality dominants tend to take a measured, attentive, respectful approach.

Tip Five: Take "elite" (and other) claims with a large grain of salt.

Some men, in an attempt to impress you, may claim to be members of an "elite" private SM organization that only admits the "select few" -- and you, tasty little morsel that you are, just happen to qualify. Well, the truth is that there are many relatively private SM clubs, but almost all are small, local groups, and most don't make any special claims of being "elite" or "true" SM organizations. In particular, I would urge you to be extremely skeptical of anyone claiming to be a "true master" or to practice the "one true form" of SM.

Remember that a bit of bragging on a man's part is often a normal part of dating behavior, so let him talk -- and listen carefully to both what he says and how he says it. How long has he been in the community? How many meetings, parties, and other events has he attended? What relevant books has he read? Has he ever given a presentation at an SM club? If so, did he get invited back?  Has he ever served a term as an officer in an SM club? If so, how did most of the club members feel about him by the time his term was over?

What are his opinions about others in the community, and his view of their opinions towards him? Dominant men often have strong personalities and strong opinions, and thus often evoke strong reactions. Therefore, it would be relatively normal if he had a bad view of a few people in the community, but does he have a bad view of virtually everybody? (By the way, notice how quickly, frequently, and intensely he voices negative opinions about others. That itself can be insightful.)

It would also be relatively normal if he (correctly) believed that he had a few enemies in the community, but does he believe he is being widely shunned, or even conspired against?

How many friends does he have? Does he at least get along with most other dominant men? How do the dominant women in the club feel about him? Does he get along with most submissive men? In particular, does he have any close, deep, ongoing friendships?

When out on a date with such a man, notice how he treats the people in service jobs. Remember what's sometimes called the waitress test:  Notice how your date treats the waitress -- because that's how he's going to be treating you in six months. As one submissive woman remarked about how her (now ex) "Master" treated such people, "I figured it out. He's not a dominant. He's a rude asshole."

How does he now feel about the women he used to be involved with? If he has a low opinion of one or two of them, that's relatively normal, but if he claims that all of them were lying, unstable, bitches, it's time to get worried.

Check out his sense of humor, as this is often deeply reflective of the person. Be wary of the dominant who cannot laugh at himself.

(By the way, another submissive woman of long and somewhat world-weary experience has concluded that there is also a strong inverse relationship between how many titles a man awards himself and how good a dominant he is. Remember that fact when you meet someone who wants you to address him as Master Top Daddy Lord Sir.)

Tip Six: Know that "malicious warnings" occur.

The SM community is made up of human beings, and human beings can be both ethical and unethical. While most people in the SM community are pretty ethical most of the time, there are lapses. This community, unfortunately but predictably, has its full human share of personality conflicts, political feuds, bitter feelings following failed relationships, and so forth.

While the community does try to warn newcomers about genuinely dangerous people, understand that this warning process is usually not well organized, usually lacking in "due process," and often not very objective in how such warnings are made. It is therefore, unfortunately, subject to abuse by unethical people. (Remember that there are at least two sides to a story, and the guy may not even know an unflattering "story" is being told about.) Therefore, I advise you to take an unsolicited warning with a grain of salt.

Let's say that you are at a club meeting and having a conversation with a dominant man who seems decent enough, but after your conversation with him someone else, whom you barely know, warns you that the man you were talking to is an evil, unstable, battering, substance abuser who kicks his dog and votes Republican. What should you do?

First, discreetly ask around (or simply listen as people talk). How many other people agree with your self-appointed "helpful friend's" assessment? Is there any history of a personality conflict, and/or of a political feud, and/or of a failed relationship between the two of them? Do the members of one particular clique seem to thing that the guy in question is a creep but the rest of the club members feel OK about him?

Second, try this test: Ask several women who seem fairly stable and objective to name some men that might be good for you to play with, and see who does and does not make their lists. How do those lists compare? What reasons are given for the selections and exclusions?

Third, again, give it time. Personality always emerges over time. Give him enough time and, sooner or later -- and it's usually sooner rather than later -- you'll be able to judge quite clearly for yourself whether the guy is a prince or a frog. (You'll know something important about that helpful friend, too.)

Tip Seven: Beware, especially, of the person who tries to isolate you.

Perhaps the single biggest "red flag" that a prospective male partner might be abusive or otherwise toxic is an attempt by him to limit your access to information and discussion about what are and what are not considered appropriate SM practices, ethics, and relationships.

This can sometimes be a bit difficult to determine because, as I mentioned, the competition for new females can sometimes be intense; therefore it's understandable that a man might want to arrange for you to spend a significant amount of time just with him to see if he can form a relationship with you. (And let us remember there is a decent chance that such a relationship might very well be a wonderful thing for both of you.)

Try this test: Dating realities being what they are, it's understandable that a guy might not want you to spend much time with other guys (indeed, it's a harsh fact, but many men won't bring a woman to an SM club meeting until their own relationship with her is firmly established), but how does he feel about your spending time with other sources of information?

If he strongly opposes your discussing or learning about SM from a source other than him, beware! If he doesn't want you reading non-fiction books about SM, or looking over web sites about SM, or attending presentations given by SM clubs, or hanging out with other submissive women, or in any other way "corrupting" yourself with such ideas of "false SM" when he is willing to bestow upon you the honor and privilege of learning "true SM" (from him), get out of there!

On the other hand, if he gives you books to read, points out web sites and other internet resources, takes you to various SM-related presentations, and -- in particular -- puts you in contact with other submissive women, stick around for a while.

Tip Eight: Seek, especially, the advice and companionship of other submissive women.

I increasingly believe that the first resource a novice submissive woman should be referred to when she comes into the SM community is a support group for submissive women -- preferably a group whose members meet face-to-face at least once a month. Several SM clubs have such a group, and more are starting them.

There is usually a tremendous amount of collective wisdom and perspective in such a group, and a novice submissive can learn a great deal very quickly. Probably the only big limit would be a "no setting up play dates" rule at the meetings. If a woman makes an offer to you, during such a group meeting, such as, "you know, a few play dates with my wonderful Master (and maybe me as well) would teach you ever so much" I suggest that you quietly decline. On the other hand, as you meet many other submissive (or switchable) women, you may find that you have a particularly close rapport with some of them, and these women can become some of your best friends.

Hopefully there will be many such women in the group, and they will come from a variety of backgrounds, and not all be members of the same group, clique, or club (other than that one). Among other things, this is a great place to check out a dominant's reputation. If most of the women in the group think he's a good guy, that's one sign. If most of them think he's a jerk, that's another sign. (In both cases, try to get specifics as to why they feel that way. What, exactly, are the things he did or didn't do that were so wonderful or so terrible? Opinions unaccompanied by facts aren't worth much.)

Tip Nine: Explore.

Your first year of involvement in the SM world is often a time of tremendous personal growth and change. You will likely have many new experiences, meet many new people, and see many new sights. (Being into SM allows you opportunities to wear some truly wonderful outfits, too.)  In addition to exploring your submissive aspects, you might also find that you have some dominant aspects to yourself.

(A many "submissive" women are not exclusively submissive. Many are more correctly called "switches," and they at least occasionally enjoy taking the opposite role. This is also true of many "dominant" men.)

Also, you will probably have a chance to take a closer look at issues such as bisexuality and non-monogamy. I've found that at least half of the women in the "relatively heterosexual" section of the SM community are at least somewhat bisexual, and a large percentage of the couples are other than entirely monogamous.

You will also likely have a chance to explore many different SM-related practices. For example, you may have had fantasies of being tied up, and you'll likely get a chance to explore that. You may also get opportunities to explore activities such as spanking, whipping, using clamps, dripping hot wax, and so forth.

One bit of advice: It's common to find that you will come to enjoy a broader range of activities over time, and that some (but not all) of the activities which at first held little interest for you, or perhaps even turned you off will become enjoyable. There's a saying: "Never say never."

On the other hand, there is a proper time and place to explore. Trust your intuition. If doing something feels really right, then doing it probably is right. On the other hand, if doing something distinctly feels wrong, then doing it probably is wrong. In particular, don't rush into anything blindly. Never let some "expert" talk you into doing something if doing it doesn't feel right. There is no rush about doing any of this. The truth almost always emerges over time, so give yourself that time.

It can be insightful to play with several different partners as you explore SM, but you have to go about it carefully. This is true even if your ultimate goal is to find, and be monogamous with, "Master Right." As always, take your time, get to know the other person fairly well, and negotiate carefully before you play. It can be useful to keep the "NTA test" in mind: How do you feel about the idea of being "naked, tied up, and alone" with this person? By the way, one great feature of play parties is that they allow you to the chance to play with a new partner in relative safety.

Notice how things are developing over time in any relationship you may establish with a dominant man. While every relationship has its ups and downs, its successes and failures, and its rough spots and smooth spots, the overall trend should be a good one. If you basically feel happy and, over time, generally feel happier with your partner and your relationship, that's a good sign.

On the other hand, if you basically feel unhappy and, over time, generally feel unhappier about your partner and your relationship, that's a bad sign -- a very bad sign. If you're unhappy and getting unhappier, get some help or get out. (One novice submissive woman, who was miserable in her relationship, asked me "every time he learns that I like something, he takes it away from me -- even the pleasure of my giving him an orgasm. Is it supposed to be like that? I didn't know I knew so many different ways of saying "no." She didn't stay in that relationship much longer.)

Tip Ten: When the proper time comes, help educate and orient new submissive women, and others.

Interest in SM is growing rapidly, and the demand for realistic information is growing accordingly. Don't be too surprised if other people, when they learn of your interest, start asking you for information and advice. This may start happening long before you feel ready to start giving it. Don't worry too much. The generally agreed upon principles are fairly well known, and it's not difficult to refer people to good sources of information. (You may quickly become a pretty good source of such information yourself.)

Remember that in a very real sense, there is a fierce competition, almost a war, going on between the "good guy" educators and the "bad guy" predators for the "hearts and minds" of the novices, particularly the novice submissive women, and that the stakes are very high -- sometimes as high as life or death.

The "good guys" always need more team members. Please join when you're ready.


Resources:



The reason Why the republicans failed to locate Bin Ladin?  and what was the reason Obama had to do it for Bush?






(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said Friday that capturing or killing al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden remains a high priority as the United States marks the anniversary of the September 11 attacks in 2001.
"Capturing or killing bin Laden and Zawahri would be extremely important to our national security," Obama said, referring to al Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri.
"It doesn't solve all our problems but it remains a high priority to this administration," Obama said in response to a question at a news conference covering a range of domestic and international topics.
As the United States has "ramped up the pressure" on al Qaeda, "what's happened is bin Laden has gone deep underground," Obama said.
The consequence, he said, is bin Laden and others "may have been holed up in ways that have made it harder for them to operate."
Obama warned "there is always going to be the potential" for individuals or small groups to carry out strikes against U.S. targets.
Ultimately, the United States will "stamp out" threats from militants, he said, "but it's going to take some time."



My best wishes to you in your explorations.

Laura Y

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.                                                                                                                 Harry J. Anslinger


 If the racist pig Harry Anslinger were alive today, he would no doubt be in front of a Colorado House or Senate committee on regulating medical marijuana dispensaries, imploring the gathered politicians to ignore the will of the people and ban the wicked weed outright.
“There are today 25 million total marijuana smokers in the U.S.,” Anslinger might say, “and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Indians, Asian and entertainers who are the root cause of economic downturn in America. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”

Actually, Anslinger did say that, and much more. With the help of the federal government, the states, DuPont, pharmaceutical companies and the Hearst newspaper chain, Anslinger sought to keep the heartbeat of Puritanism alive. He was the assistant Prohibition commissioner and then commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962.

Anslinger had a receptive audience in Jim Crow America, where apartheid was codified. Someone had to be blamed for the economic calamity that had overtaken the United States and the world in the 1930s. And Mexicans were streaming across the border, taking jobs that were scarce in states like Colorado.

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men,” Anslinger said.

Until that time, not much had been done legally in regard to marijuana. A few states had laws against the plant, but most were instituted as a means of keeping nonwhites down. Another means — as if they needed more tools — of making sure who knew who was boss.

A long history

A few years before the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, about 4,670 years before, actually, Shen Neng, the Chinese emperor, touted marijuana tea as a treatment for gout, rheumatism, malaria and, of all things, poor memory. Shen sounds like he could have been a pitchman on overnight cable TV with claims like that.

Even before Shen, in about 8,000 B.C.E., according to the Columbia History of the World, “the earliest known woven fabric was apparently hemp (marijuana).”

Hemp is the fibrous stalk of the cannabis plant. Marijuana is the flowers and leaves.

Hemp was used for clothing, oils, rope and many other useful items, as well as medicine and one must assume its powerful sister marijuana was used as a mood enhancer for religious and other purposes.

Marijuana is one of the five sacred plants mentioned in the Arthava Veda, a Hindu holy text. It’s certainly No. 1 for Rastafarians.

From 1,000 B.C.E. to 1883, according to “The Emperor Wears No Clothes,” hemp was the planet’s largest agricultural crop, producing most of the world’s fiber, fabric, lighting oil, paper, paints and varnishes, incense and medicines. Marijuana also was one of the most widely used substances in many religions and cults — taken to manifest the spirit world and help users get closer to their maker.

The first hemp law in America was enacted in Jamestown Colony, Va., in 1619.

The law required farmers to grow Indian hempseed. Similar laws were enacted in Massachusetts in 1631, Connecticut in 1632, and in George Washington’s time the Virginia Constitution stated that a certain percentage of a plantation had to produce hemp.

Washington, Father of Our Country and presumably a person Harry Anslinger looked upon favorably, was said to be the largest hemp producer in the colonies. Benjamin Franklin started one of America’s first paper mills with cannabis.

According to the anti-drug Web site Narconon, “Marijuana was listed in the United States Pharmacopeia from 1850 until 1942 and was prescribed for various conditions including labor pains, nausea and rheumatism.”

In the 1880s, Turkish smoking rooms in the Northeast were the rage for a while. They were not smoking tobacco in these places.

From accounts by older Puebloans, their mothers and grandmothers would pick the ubiquitous weed along riverbeds and railroad tracks and use it as a cold medication and pain reliever.

The age of reform

It is estimated that in 1900, 2 to 5 percent of all Americans were addicted to opiates. Opiates and opium-based products were sold over the counter, and even soft drinks, such as Coca-Cola (cocaine), were loaded with what would now be considered Schedule 1 narcotics.

The “aughts” were a reformist, trust-busting age, the beginning of true regulation in the United States. The food industry was exposed by Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle,” and even college football caught the eyes of reformers, or “muckrakers” everywhere, in the spirit of improving the lot of ordinary Americans.

Over-the-counter medications and intoxicants were not spared from reform and banishment and, eventually, the U.S. launched into the ill-fated Prohibition period, from 1920 to 1933. All Prohibition did was make ordinary Americans criminals and give rise to real organized crime in this country.

But Prohibition sure made Harry Anslinger happy.

When the ban on booze finally ended, guys like Anslinger and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover needed something to keep them in work until they could conjure another menace to society.

Demon weed

Marijuana, which was largely used by minorities and musicians then, became that menace.

And William Randolph Hearst, who helped spark the Spanish-American War in 1898 with sensationalized reporting by his newspaper chain, helped Anslinger and others demonize marijuana.

The result was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which Anslinger arranged to push through Congress after a single hearing. The only dissent heard in that session was from the head of the American Medical Association, who disputed Anslinger’s characterizations of the plant’s effects and the AMA’s position on it.

The act stated that to grow and sell marijuana, one must pay taxes. The first person arrested under the law, the day it was enacted, was a Denver man who was sentenced to four years of hard labor in Leavenworth (Kan.) Federal Prison for selling a couple of joints. The man who bought the marijuana served 18 months in prison for his part.

A now-hilarious but then-serious movie, “Reefer Madness,” helped scare the public further. But the movie fizzled and only became popular (especially with marijuana fans) when rediscovered in 1971.

Hearst also had financial and racial motivations. His hatred of Mexicans, whom he considered to be marijuana users to the man, was well-known. Pancho Villa had taken Hearst’s Mexican forests during the Mexican Revolution, and hemp also was a threat to Hearst’s U.S. forests as means for paper production.

Not everyone agreed with Anslinger and Hearst. New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia commissioned a study by physicians and scientists that disputed Anslinger’s claims. It is documented that Anslinger hunted down each copy of the report and had it destroyed.

Red Scare practices

DuPont sparked legislation to outlaw hemp in the 1950s. DuPont had developed nylon in the mid-1930s and wanted to eliminate the use of hemp as a base for rope and clothing. Growing hemp is illegal in the U.S. under federal law due to its relation to marijuana, and any imported hemp products must meet a zero-tolerance level.

During the 1950s, Anslinger used Red Scare tactics to further demonize marijuana, saying the Chinese Communists were sending joints into the country to spread immorality among America’s youth.

“Marijuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing,” Anslinger said.

Anslinger finally retired in 1962, but his attitude about marijuana remained prevalent in the United States.

Until the late 1960s.

High times again

The times were changing indeed, and in the previous decade the Beats, the daddy-o’s of the hippies, used marijuana as part of their lifestyle. When, because of the Vietnam War and other reasons, much of the Baby Boom generation revolted, weed, pot or grass, or any of the many names marijuana was called, became a common part of their everyday life.

This development was not taken lightly, and President Richard Nixon lumped marijuana into the same category as heroin and LSD, much stronger drugs. Nixon had Mexican marijuana fields sprayed with paraquat, an herbicide that kills green plants on contact and also is toxic to humans.

Nixon ran as a law-and-order president, and he pushed for a war on drugs.

That war lasts to this day, costing the taxpayers billions. Marijuana is part of the war, even though polls now show that more than half of adults believe marijuana should be legal. That positive response is even higher in Western states.

Presidents since Nixon have followed his opposition to legalization, from Ronald Reagan’s wife Nancy’s “Just Say No To Drugs,” to Bill Clinton, who lawyerly said he didn’t inhale when he tried pot. Fourteen states have made medical marijuana legal, and the current president, Barack Obama, has ordered the Drug Enforcement Agency not to raid dispensaries in those states, a rare bit of states’ rights trumping federal power.

The battle rages and the result is unclear. It’s another cultural thing, apparently.

But one thing is clear: Marijuana was made illegal by subterfuge, racism, corporate greed and coercion.

Mostly led by a guy named Harry.

1910: “Marihuana is the most frightening and vicious drug ever to hit New Orleans.” —New Orleans Public Safety Commission
1920s: “Makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” —H.J. Anslinger, Bureau of Narcotics
1930: “Marihuana is responsible for the raping of white women by crazed negroes.” —Hearst Newspapers Nationwide
1932: “Hasheesh goads users to blood lust.” —Hearst Newspapers
1935: “Marihuana influenced negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows, and look at a white woman twice.” —Hearst Newspapers
1937: “Marihuana is the most violent drug in the history of mankind.” —Congressional Testimony, H.J. Anslinger, FBN
1938: “Marihuana is more dangerous than heroin or cocaine.” —Anslinger, Scientific American, May, 1938
1938: “If the hideous monster of Frankenstein came face to face with marihuana, he would drop dead of fright.” —Anslinger, FBN, quoted in Hearst newspaper
1937-50: “Negro entertainers with their jazz and swing music are declared an outgrowth of marihuana use which possesses white women to tap their feet.” —statements to Congress by Anslinger, FBN
1945: “More harmful than habit-forming opium, inducing fits of temporary insanity.” —Newsweek, 1-15-45
1946: “Marihuana is an important cause of crime.” —Bureau of Narcotics, Newsweek, 11-18-46
1948: “Marihuana leads to pacifism and Communist brainwashing.” —Anslinger, before Congress
1973: “Marijuana increases breast size in males.”
1974: “Permanent brain damage is one of the inevitable results of the use of marijuana.” —Ronald Reagan, LA Times
1974: “interferes with reproduction, disease resistance, and basic biological processes.” —Daily Oklahoman, 11-19-74
1980: “Marijuana leads to harder drugs.” —Reagan Administration
1985: “Marijuana use makes you sterile.” —Reagan Administration
1980s: “Marijuana leads to heroin; marijuana causes brain damage.” —the 17-week D.A.R.E. Program
1986: “Marijuana leads to homosexuality, the breakdown of the immune system, and therefore to AIDS.” —Carlton Turner
1990: “Marijuana makes you lazy.” —Partnership for a Drug-Free America



Marijuana: Should it be legalized? Part I – The Story Behind our Current Prohibition

Thursday, August 27th, 2009
August 27, 2009 – People have used marijuana since before the beginning of recorded history. It is known to have been used thousands of years before the birth of Christ and its use was legal for the vast majority of that time. It was legal in the United States until the early 1900′s, when a campaign of lies and propaganda brought about its prohibition. Recently many prominent people, including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo have advocated the legalization of marijuana, or at the very least having a national discussion on that possibility.
Many people have come to realize that if marijuana were legalized, regulated, and taxed many of the problems caused by its prohibition could be erased, and tens of billions in revenue could be generated. Thousands die yearly in accidents or due to health related problems resulting from the use of alcohol, yet it is legal, and it should be. It is the responsibilty of those who choose to use it to do so responsibly. Shouldn’t the same common sense rules apply to marijuana?
This is the first article in a series which will expose the truth behind the passage of our nation’s foolish laws governing the use of marijuana, the harm those laws cause, and why it should be legalized. In this article I’m going to look at the reasons marijuana was outlawed in the U.S. One might imagine that solid scientific evidence was used, or that factual accounts of criminal activity attributed to its use and a legitimate concern for public safety may have compelled our government to criminalize marijuana. Not so. In fact much of the so called evidence that was used had no basis whatsoever in fact. Racist propaganda was used to stir up anger. Incompetent and corrupt politicians and government officials spurred by greed, the prospect of personal gain, and the hope of career advancement were a major force behind the movement to ban its use, possession and cultivation. Horrible tales of ruthless violence, including brutal murders and vicious gang rapes were totally fabricated in order to frighten the public and gain support for anti-marijuana laws.
The first marijuana law in America was passed more than 150 years before we declared our independence, but it wasn’t intended to restrict marijuana. In 1619 a law was enacted at the Jamestown Colony in Virginia that actually required farmers to grow Indian hempseed. Over the next 200 years there were several laws passed making its cultivation mandatory. In fact between 1763 and 1767 you could be jailed in Virginia for not growing it.
Of course it was not being grown just so early settlers could get high. Hemp had many uses at the time. It was used for rope, clothing, and food, among other things. The census of 1850 showed there were more than 8,000 hemp plantations in the country that grew a minimum of 2,000 acres of the plant.
It was the early 1900′s before marijuana began to be seen as a problem. California was the first state to pass a law outlawing the “preparations of marijuana, or loco weed.” At the time there was tension near the Mexican border due to the revolution in that country. Violence as a result of the revolution sometimes spilled over the border. Many people in the American west were also angry that large farms were using cheap Mexican labor which hurt smaller farms. The fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana was used to help pass the law in California, not based on facts or science, but on the anti-Mexican sentiment that existed among many people at the time. The law was intended more to target Mexicans than to protect the public from marijuana’s “harmful” effects.
At around the same time Utah also outlawed marijuana. According to Charles Whitebread, a Professor of Law at the University of Southern California Law School, Mormons returned to Salt Lake City from Mexico with marijuana in 1910. Church leaders were not at all happy with its use by members of the Mormon Church. Whitebread speculates that may be one of the reasons Utah outlawed marijuana, althought some members of the Mormon community dispute his theory.
Several other states used the racial prejudice towards Mexicans to help pass laws against marijuana. Wyoming was first in 1915, followed by Texas in 1919, Iowa, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Arkansas in 1923, and Nebraska and Montana in 1927. In Texas a State Senator promoted the outlawing of marijuana by saying, “All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy.” The Butte Montana Standard quoted a Montana lawmaker’s statement on the floor of the Montana Legislature: “When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff… he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies.”
In the eastern states racist statements were also used to turn public sentiment in favor of making marijuana illegal. It was said by one newspaper editorialist to “influence black men to actually look into the eyes of white men, and look twice at white women.” Oh, the travesty!
In the 1931 New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal, Dr. A. E. Fossier wrote that “Under the influence of hashish those fanatics would madly rush at their enemies, and ruthlessly massacre every one within their grasp.” Within a very short time, marijuana started to be linked to insanely violent behavior.
In 1930 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was established as a new division of the Treasury Department. Harry J. Anslinger was named as its first director. Anslinger’s ambition rather than facts was behind his campaign to outlaw marijuana. He saw it as an issue that could be seized upon to further his own career. Anslinger knew he could create a national crisis by using racism and claims of brutally violent crimes to draw national attention to the “horrific problems” caused by using marijuana.
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US,” said Anslinger, “and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.” This wasn’t Anslinger’s only completely ludicrous statement. He also claimed that “Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.” If you do a little research into Anslinger you will find many such ridiculous statements.
As late as 1961 Anslinger spoke about his efforts to outlaw marijuana, and still used propaganda and completely false stories to justify them:
“Much of the most irrational juvenile violence and that has written a new chapter of shame and tragedy is traceable directly to this hemp intoxication. A gang of boys tear the clothes from two school girls and rape the screaming girls, one boy after the other. A sixteen-year-old kills his entire family of five in Florida, a man in Minnesota puts a bullet through the head of a stranger on the road; in Colorado a husband tries to shoot his wife, kills her grandmother instead and then kills himself. Every one of these crimes had been proceeded by the smoking of one or more marijuana “reefers.” As the marijuana situation grew worse, I knew action had to be taken to get the proper legislation passed. By 1937 under my direction, the Bureau launched two important steps. First, a legislative plan to seek from Congress a new law that would place marijuana and its distribution directly under federal control. Second, on radio and at major forums, such that presented annually by the New York Herald Tribune, I told the story of this evil weed of the fields and river beds and roadsides. I wrote articles for magazines; our agents gave hundreds of lectures to parents, educators, social and civic leaders. In network broadcasts I reported on the growing list of crimes, including murder and rape. I described the nature of marijuana and its close kinship to hashish. I continued to hammer at the facts. I believe we did a thorough job, for the public was alerted and the laws to protect them were passed, both nationally and at the state level. We also brought under control the wild growing marijuana in this country. Working with local authorities, we cleaned up hundreds of acres of marijuana and we uprooted plants sprouting along the roadsides.”
Randolf Hearst, owner of chain of newspapers, also campaigned against marijuana. While Anslinger’s motive was ambition, Hearst’s was profit and bigotry. It is fairly well known that Hearst held strong anti-Mexican views. This was probably due to his loss of more than 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa during the Mexican revolution. He had also invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and wanted to stop the development of hemp paper. Spreading terrible lies about Mexicans, and claiming marijuana caused extreme acts of violence sold newspapers. That not only made him money, but helped insure that hemp production would be halted.
Some of Hearst’s newspapers made ridiculous claims about marijuana. One column in the San Francisco Examiner said that “Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days, Hashish goads users to bloodlust. By the tons it is coming into this country, the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms…. Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him….”
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the claims made by Anslinger and Hearst are far more dangerous than marijuana could ever be. Such statements themselves encourage racist views and could have easily incited acts of violence against blacks and Mexicans. Since it is impossible to overdose on marijuana, and not a single death has ever been cited as the medical cause of any person’s death, there is one absolute and undeniable certainty. More violence has been caused, and more lives have been destroyed by the campaign against marijuana, and the laws that came about as a result of it, than by the drug itself.
If you want to point to the crime and violence surrounding the drug trade in America, you can trace it all right back to the beginning of the war on marijuana that was started during the first half of the 20th century by dishonest politicians, corrupt government officials, and the greed and racism of figures in the corporate world.


The Drug War is a Race War
Liberals need to keep pounding on the fact that the Drug War is a Republican instituted race war.


Criminalizing drugs has always been a means of targeting and controlling racial, ethnic, and social minorities.


The Chinese laborers who came to California to build the Transcontinental Railroad smoked opium. Negroes in the old south sniffed cocaine when it was cheaper than alcohol. Mexicans brought their marihuana with them when they migrated into the Southwest. And, according to Smack: Heroin and the American City, heroin was "Originally popular among working-class whites in the 1920s."


They've all been criminalized.


The biggest racist of them all was Harry J. Anslinger.


Anslinger was Assistant Prohibition Commissioner when he saw the future in 1930: repeal of alcohol prohibition meant repeal of his job.


A career tax-sucking bureaucrat, Anslinger was desperate to find himself another cushy government ride.


What he found was marijuana. His strategy was to get the government to criminalize the Devil Weed and his tactic was blatant fear-mongering racism.


He toured the country preaching social Armageddon wherever he could raise a white audience.


"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." - Testimony to US Congress supporting Marihuana Tax Act, 1937.


Other documented Anslinger racist quotes are:


"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men’s shadows and look at a white woman twice."


"Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men."


"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with female students (white) smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result pregnancy."


White America pressured the government into outlawing this "most dangerous and deadly drug known to man" and Anslinger's bureau-buddies got him appointed America's first Drug Czar.


The racism continues today.


"While drug use is consistent across all racial groups," says the Drug Policy Alliance, "Blacks constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of persons convicted, and 74 percent of people sent to prison. Nationally, Latinos comprise almost half of those arrested for marijuana offenses."


The racist drug war must end!  Republicans must be put down.



2 comments:

  1. I also reside in MD! And I greatly appreciate this post. Do you have any words of wisdom about the community in this state?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete