we are family... Becerra...Hunt...Trevino...

Jun 28, 2015

WHERES OUR COMMON SENSE?: FRESNO CA. WILL CANCEL YOUR 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS O...

WHERES OUR COMMON SENSE?: FRESNO CA. WILL CANCEL YOUR 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS O...: FRESNO CA. WILL CANCEL YOUR 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS ON JUNE 29, 2015 by Pam NickelT-Jones | WeaponizedNews.Com | June 25, 201...

Jun 27, 2015

...................

Thank you for reading We are Family Becerra...Hunt....Trevino

Mar 24, 2015

After two years of secret planning, Anslinger brought his plan to Congress — complete with a scrapbook full of sensational Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana, and racial slurs.

It was a remarkably short set of hearings.

The one fly in Anslinger’s ointment was the appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.

Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger’s view.

He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people’s minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren’t even aware of it.

Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:

“That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for [their] statements [even Woodward was partially taken in by Hearst's propaganda]. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.

But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.

You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children’s Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.

Inquiry of the Children’s Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.

Inquiry of the Office of Education— and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit— indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.

Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.

Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.

The bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence.”

Committee members then proceeded to attack Dr. Woodward, questioning his motives in opposing the legislation. Even the Chairman joined in:

The Chairman: If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the Federal Government is trying to do. It has not only an unselfish motive in this, but they have a serious responsibility.

Dr. Woodward: We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for 2 years without any intimation, even, to the profession, that it was being prepared.

After some further bantering…

The Chairman: I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:

The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.

The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.

The result is tragic.

School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.

High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.

This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.

The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it.

That is a pretty severe indictment. They say it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country as such.

And that was basically it. Yellow journalism won over medical science.

The committee passed the legislation on. And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:

Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”

Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”

“Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”

Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.”

And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

The entire coverage in the New York Times: “President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic, marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions.”

Anslinger as precursor to the Drug Czars

Anslinger was essentially the first Drug Czar. Even though the term didn’t exist until William Bennett’s position as director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy, Anslinger acted in a similar fashion. In fact, there are some amazing parallels between Anslinger and the current Drug Czar John Walters. Both had kind of a carte blanche to go around demonizing drugs and drug users. Both had resources and a large public podium for their voice to be heard and to promote their personal agenda. Both lied constantly, often when it was unnecessary. Both were racists. Both had the ear of lawmakers, and both realized that they could persuade legislators and others based on lies, particularly if they could co-opt the media into squelching or downplaying any opposition views.

Anslinger even had the ability to circumvent the First Amendment. He banned the Canadian movie “Drug Addict,” a 1946 documentary that realistically depicted the drug addicts and law enforcement efforts. He even tried to get Canada to ban the movie in their own country, or failing that, to prevent U.S. citizens from seeing the movie in Canada. Canada refused. (Today, Drug Czar John Walters is trying to bully Canada into keeping harsh marijuana laws.)

Thank you for reading We are Family Becerra...Hunt....Trevino

Sep 10, 2014

The Effects of Criticism on Relationships

Again and again in my work with couples I see the destructive effect criticism can have on a relationship. In this article I would like to explore what my three favorite relationship experts have to say about criticism and its effects on relationships.

Drs. John & Julie Gottman

The therapists who have done the most research on the effects of criticism on relationships were undoubtedly Drs. John and Julie Gottman. The two are famous for their “love lab,” in which hundreds of couples were screened, interviewed and observed over the course of two decades. As a result of their research the Gottmans could predict in less than five minutes, with 90 percent accuracy, if a couple was going to stay together or divorce.

They came up with a metaphor to describe four communication styles that can predict the end of a relationship. They termed them “The Four Horsemen” — a phrase coined after the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse from the New Testament, depicting the end of time.

For the purposes of this article I will only be focusing on the first and second of these “horsemen.”

Criticizing your partner is different than offering a critique or voicing a complaint. Critiques and complaints tend to be about specific issues, whereas criticism has to do with attacking your partner’s character and who they are.

For example, a complaint might be: “We haven’t gone on vacation together in so long! I’m tired of hearing about our money troubles!” Here we see a specific issue being addressed that is a problem for one partner.

A criticism might go something like this: “You never want to spend money on us! It’s your fault we can never go away together because you spend all our money on useless things!” This is an outright attack on the partner’s character. It is guaranteed to put them in defensive mode and sets the tone for war.

The main problem with criticism is that it can pave the way for the worst of the horsemen — contempt.

Contempt is about holding your partner in a negative light without giving them the benefit of the doubt. The contemptuous partner is usually attacking from a place of superiority. This can send their partner the message that they are not liked, appreciated, understood or respected. This does little to create a safe, secure and trusting bond in the relationship. The tragedy is that when parents model this negative type of bonding it creates an enormous amount of insecurity and anxiety for their children.

Treating your partner with contempt is the single greatest predictor of divorce, according to Dr. Gottman’s work. It is by far the most destructive of the four communication styles.

Stan Tatkin

Stan Tatkin, who created a psychobiological approach to couples therapy (known as PACT), is another well-known clinical expert and researcher on couples. He describes in great detail how the brain can be wired for both war and love but points out that our brains are not necessarily that good at this thing called love:

“The brain’s wired first and foremost for war rather than love. Its primary function is to ensure we survive as individuals and as a species and it is very, very good at this.” (1)

Tatkin talks about the importance for couples to foster the “couple bubble” in order to counteract this tendency toward war. This is the intimate world of the relationship where you and your partner let each other know that the relationship is a secure and safe haven. It gives the message that your partner can be your go-to person under stress or duress, that your partner has your back, cares about you and will protect you. Couples that know how to foster a “couple bubble” will have a relationship that truly thrives.

Contempt and relentless criticism put a couple at war with each other. This is the opposite of the couple bubble. Smart partners who want to create a strong and happy relationship need to do all that they can to preserve and foster a strong couple bubble.

Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT)

EFT was created by Sue Johnson, who Dr. Gottman called “the best couples therapist in the world.” In this model, criticism is seen as part of what’s called “the negative cycle.” The negative cycle is an interaction cycle between two people that, when left unchecked, can create an enormous amount of distance and disconnection in a relationship.

In the EFT approach the focus would be on what the emotion is that underlies and fuels the criticism. The underlying feeling is what needs to be addressed in order to defuse the negative cycle. The goal of EFT is to get to the softer, more vulnerable feelings underlying the negative cycle.

In Stan Tatkin’s language, the goal would be to access the loving brain underneath the warring brain. In order to access the softer underbelly of sometimes vicious fights, it is important to create an emotionally safe environment for exploration. In the beginning, this is often most of what I am doing with my couples: creating an emotionally safe space to explore the feelings that underlie their negative and reactive cycles. Naming the more tender and vulnerable feelings underneath the negative cycle is the first step out of it.

George and Beth

One of my couples came in exhausted from their endless, circular fighting. Their negative cycle went something like this: George would get critical and Beth would become defensive. Then, in order to get his point across, George would become more critical, which just made Beth more defensive. Around and around they would go on their not-so-merry-go-round.

What finally broke their negative cycle was when George started to access what was going on for him just before he started to become critical. He saw Beth as someone who had a lot of things going on all the time, and he didn’t feel like that much of a priority to her, which felt hurtful. Instead of letting Beth know how important she was to him and how much he missed quality time together, he would attack her with criticisms. This way he would get her attention but in a very negative way.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what his parents had modeled for him. When Beth was able to witness the hurt that lay under his critical attacks, she was able to come forward and offer reassurance about her love for him. George, secure in Beth’s love for him, became far less critical and better at asking for what he really needed. This couple was well on their way to repairing their relationship and creating a strong couple bubble.

All relationships have some conflict and disappointments. This is actually healthy. Conflicts and disappointments don’t have to destroy a relationship. It is how the couple handles them that matters.

Couples who can avoid the four horsemen and come together skillfully (à la the Gottmans), couples who can access their loving brain versus their warring brain even under duress (à la Dr. Tatkin), and couples who can speak to the vulnerability that underlies their reactivity (à la EFT) are all couples who will thrive, even under stressful circumstances.

Thank you for reading We are Family Becerra...Hunt....Trevino