Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: When It Comes to Pot, Pain, and Cancer, Jeff Sessions Is An Idiot
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/archives/2018/03 ... sions-idiot-pot-cancer-opioids
Published: Mar 3, 2018
Author: Matt Kibbe
Post Date: 2018-03-03 17:48:15 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 5299
Comments: 66
I am a stage-four cancer survivor. No, that's wrong. I'm not a survivor. I beat cancer's ass into the ground, dusted myself off, and proceeded on with life. I don't consider myself, or the millions of other people who deal with life-threatening or chronic conditions, a victim. We are not. But surely, patients have enough to manage already without the idiocy rattling through Attorney General Jeff Sessions' teeth every time he opines on opiods, cannabis, and pain management. That's right, I said it. Someone had to. Jeff Sessions is an idiot. The problem is plain for anyone who has had an experience like mine to see: Our top federal law enforcement officer has no idea what real pain is really like, or what doctors do to manage it. Sessions recently told the surely apocryphal story about current White House Chief of Staff, and former four-star general, John Kelly refusing pain killers during hand surgery. I have no doubt that the general is one bad ass individual. But really? Did he wash the wound with tequila before the first incision, while grinding his teeth on a stick? Watch Sessions tell the story here. It is itself quite painful. It's like your crazy great uncle's circa-1950s-liquor-fueled rants you are subjected to once every year at Thanksgiving dinner. The difference is that your crazy great uncle is kind of endearing when he's drunk, and his opinions are harmless. This crazy uncle is the Attorney General of the United States, and he has all the power to act on his feelings, and he clearly intends to do so. "The plain fact, I believe, and I am operating on the assumption that this country prescribes too many opioids," Sessions told a gathering in Tampa a few weeks ago. "I mean, people need to take some, uh, aspirin sometimes, and tough it out a little." "Believe." "Assumption." "Too many." Forget the fact he doesn't have the slightest notion of the difference between acute pain, like when a surgical scalpel cuts into your flesh, and chronic pain, that can last indefinitely. And I wonder what exactly "Dr." Sessions means by too many? Which patients, with what conditions, under what circumstances will be determined by the federal government to be deserving of pain relief? And who, exactly, is just going to have to "tough it out a little bit?" The Attorney General probably doesn't have any specific patient in mind. He doesn't exactly appear to be focused on individual patients. He just wants to make sure that fewer patients are prescribed opioids to manage their pain—and he is weaponizing the federal government in order to accomplish this goal. The Associate Press reported last month that, according to Sessions, "the Drug Enforcement Agency is now asking medical practitioners whether they have received continuing medical education on prescribing or dispensing opioids when they apply for a license or renew." Sessions is forcing doctors to make an ugly choice: Either do best by their patients and adhere to their Hippocratic Oath—or suffer the bureaucratic harassment from the powerful Drug Enforcement Agency, and risk the loss of their license to practice medicine. If incentives matter, and they do, expect doctors to start making bad choices for their patients. I remember a time, not too long ago, when Republicans and conservatives proclaimed loudly and often that health care choices should be between patients and doctors, and the federal government should keep its nose out. But those well-worn talking points have been shelved, replaced with a new form of medical authoritarianism. For me, it's personal. I was diagnosed with cancer in 2001. I have been injected with aggressive chemotherapy cocktails that leave you feeling like you have the worst hangover ever, except that it goes on for months. And there's extensive nerve damage. If you are a masochist, you can read more gory details here. I have undergone multiple surgeries that sliced me open from stem to stern, each time leaving dozens of surgical staples in my belly, making my torso look like I big zipper. Years later, I still deal with collateral damage from the battle, including scar tissue in my abdomen that can generate significant pain. With all due respect to tough guy John Kelly, I doubt he has felt real pain, the kind that makes you wish you were dead, until scar tissue from past surgeries manages to strangle your intestines closed. And, yes, it irritates me to retell these stories. I'm not nearly old enough yet to be spending my waning days on the porch, telling my octogenarian friends about all the parts of my body that are broken. I was hoping to save the good stuff for when my wife finally sends me away to a geezer farm in the country. Of course opioid addicition is a real problem, and opioid abuse is indeed dangerous. I have friends who have told their stories about managing pain, and addiction. They all sought other forms of treatment, settling on medical cannabis as a safer, more effective treatment for debilitating pain, and other chronic conditions. I can recount countless stories of patients using cannabis to get off of opioids. But here comes the idiocy again. Jeff Sessions has said that "good people don't smoke marijuana," and that he believes that cannabis is the gateway drug that leads to opioid abuse. "We think a lot of this is starting with marijuana," he says at that same piece of performance art in Tampa. The research, of course, says the opposite. So with traditional pharmaceuticals and cannabis off the table, I guess I really will have to "tough it out a bit." When I sat down to write this piece, I debated using the word idiot. It's intemperate, you might say. So I Googled it. "Idiot: A stupid person. Synonyms: fool, jackass, knucklehead, numbskull, nitwit, asshat." It might as well have just said "Jeff Sessions." 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
#6. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
Members of the Oath Keepers organization took an oath and they are fulfilling that oath: As the Attorney General, it is Jeff Sessions’ duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are enforced and that the Constitutional order is upheld. You must come to terms with the reality that you simply cannot pick and choose which laws you wish to obey….unless of course you want to do jail time. If we all arbitrarily pick and choose which laws to follow, our whole civilized society will collapse. If you don’t like the Marijuana Laws, then work to get the laws changed. Don’t work to try and get Jeff Sessions to violate his oath and ignore the laws just for you. That will never happen. It would be interesting to learn if you, as the professed Christian you claim to be, pick and choose which Biblical Laws to follow.
What does Paul say in Romans 13 about government, really? How does that apply to American politics and emergencies. The lie that all government is ordained by God is answered plainly and directly. God is righteous and ordained righteous government to enforce His justice by defending the people and their divinely established unalienable rights. Don't fall for the lies of paid off, sold out FEMA preachers, Clergy Response Team members. Get thee behind me, Satan Gatlin, evil doer! You're lying about the Bible. Despicable.
If you have time fatlin give the minister a listen. He is making sense on what I've listened to so far.
Hondo said to me: I don’t understand how I can be “lying about the Bible” when all I did was post the scrtiptue exacelty as it appears in the Bible without changing anyone thing. To really understand the message in the scripture in Romans 13:1-7, one needs to consider a detailed study and not just grab onto something a “preacher” tells them to think it means. . The best place to start is with a comprehensive study is by reading the Paul and Civil Obedience in Romans 13:1-7 comprehensive study. The purpose of this study is to focus on what Paul had to say about authorities in Romans in order that we Christians might better understand how it is that God would have us relate to those whom he, in is his sovereignty, has placed over us. The study examines Paul's teaching on the Christian's relation to the civil authorities as outlined in Romans 13:1-7 and then compare that with 1 Peter 2:13-17. First, the study surveys the problem of the textual authenticity of the passage. Second, a translation and outline will be given followed by a brief look at the historical context of the letter and the social make-up of the church in Rome. Third, the bulk of the study will be taken up with an in-depth exegesis of the passage. Fourth, and final, certain similarities and differences between Paul and Peter will be delineated. I will present at the end of this post, that fourth section for your convenience and ease of access. Kallas gives two general and three specific reasons for concluding that Romans 13:1-7 is an interpolation. In terms of the general observations, he says that it is likely that Romans 13:1-7 is an interpolation because 1) it is well known that the ending of the epistle has been altered radically and 2) nowhere else does Paul speak about the Christian's relationship to the civil authorities. In response, first, concerning the ending of Romans, it must be said that while there is continuing discussion about the authenticity of chapter 16 and parts of chapter 15, it is not a forgone conclusion that they are indeed spurious. Gamble has demonstrated that there is convincing evidence leading to the conviction that Romans 16 formed the original ending to the document.4 Even if Gamble's conclusion is rejected, it is questionable to assert that a pericope (i.e. paragraph) deep within the paraenetic section of 12:1-15:13 is somehow an interpolation due to the questionable nature of chapter 16—an epistolary ending. The problem with chapter 16 cannot be assumed to have occurred in 13:1-7. 5 Second, the fact that Paul nowhere else speaks about governing authorities is an argument from silence based in part upon the doubtful authorship of the Pastorals.6 Even if the authorship of the Pastorals is questioned, it remains an argument from silence. We cannot forbid Paul to speak about something that he has hitherto, for whatever reasons, not mentioned. Paul's letters are occasional documents and the fact that he mentions something only once can more properly be explained as due to the occasion of that particular case. He mentions the Lord's supper only once (1 Cor 11:17-34). Does this mean that we should on that basis question its authenticity? Further, the universal offer (e.g. 1:16 and pantiV tw/' pisteuvonti) of the gospel to all people as outlined in the book of Romans clearly indicates its worldwide agenda. This, then, leads to the inevitable question of the relation of Christians to the state or governing authorities.7 The question of the Christian's relationship to the state is a discussion well suited to the book of Romans. The final section is devoted to a brief comparison of Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. The point of this section of the paper is to briefly overview some of the similarities and differences between the civil instructions recorded by Paul and Peter. I will now present the following extract of that comparison for your consideration and understanding: Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17: A Brief Comparison The point of this section of the paper is to briefly overview some of the similarities and differences between the civil instructions recorded by Paul and Peter in an attempt to understand the traditions employed by both writers. SIMILARITIES Both Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 stand grammatically unconnected to their immediately preceding contexts. This may indicate that they were both pulling on a well known tradition that needed no special introduction. The Overall Structure of the Passages First, both writers issue the command exhorting believers to a certain posture before civil authority. Second, they proceed to relate the command to God or Christ—thus they relate it to the Christians' faith. Third, most of the remainder of the material is concerned with giving the rationale in each of the two situations for the command. In this regard, while Paul is longer both argue for the retributive function of the state as well as its role in promoting the good by praising it. Fourth, both writers end with universal appeals describing the kind of posture Christians are to maintain before all people. LINGUISTIC SIMILARITIES The Use of uJpotassevsqw/ujpotavghte Both authors employ the verb uJpotavssw as the controlling idea in terms of the Christian's relationship to the state. Paul uses the present imperative, while Peter uses the aorist imperative. The result however, is virtually the same. As indicated in the commentary, the undefined action inherent in the aorist is further defined as ongoing by the use of the participle ajgaqopoiou'nta". Thus both writers are setting out what they believe to be the norm in this area. The use of this term as opposed to some other suggests that they may be following a certain common tradition. Although Paul wrote some eight years earlier there does not appear to be direct literary dependence on Peter's part. The Use of uJperecouvsai" and uJperevconti The use of uJperevcw once again suggests a common tradition from which these writers are drawing. They both render to Caesar and his governors the highest possible human court. Their Christianity has not caused them to dismiss worldly structures as unimportant and of no consequence in the lives of believers. In fact, both Peter and Paul argue that from the foundation of their Christianity Christians are to recognize world leaders and governmental authorities. Eij" ejkdivkhsin and e[kdiko" Paul and Peter both lived under and witnessed the penal authority of the Roman government. That they both refer to the government and its retributive justice with the same language of "revenge" or "avenger" would seem to point to a common understanding and tradition. The Use of ajgaqopoiw`n/poivei ajgaqovn and e[painon Once again, both Paul and Peter use similar language, albeit not identical, to refer to the Christian's behavior in the world and before the state. The Christians are to do good and the result is, under normal conditions, that they will have praise from the authorities. The Injunctions in Romans 13:7 and 1 Peter 2:17 The injunctions in both Romans 13:7 and 1 Peter 2:17 are universal in their appeal. Both writers use the term "all" (pavnta" in Paul and pavsin in Peter) as the object of the first verb of the commands. Peter issues four commands which eventually end in the last command to honor all men. Paul states one command and then follows it up with a fourfold list of "things owed." He ends the list focusing on honor. To be sure, there are differences that will be discussed below, but the place of this verse at the end of the passages as well as its similar structure, seem to indicate a common tradition between Peter and Paul. CONTEXTUAL SIMILARITIES It is a matter of no little debate concerning the role of Christology in these passages. Often times in this discussion, the broader literary and historical contexts of the writers are forgotten. The point I want to make here is that both Paul and Peter, insofar as Romans and 1 Peter are concerned, demonstrate quite clearly that they have similar theologies regarding salvation and Christian living. Both of them are therefore writing from a similar soteriological context and perspective. This is important when trying to assess the relative weight to be placed upon differences in these texts. Differences do not have to be taken as incompatibilities, unless of course there is genuinely a material contradiction. DIFFERENCES Paul saw the need to communicate almost twice as much material on the subject of the state than did Peter. This, of course, is not a serious difference, but one that raises the question as to the nature of the extra material, as well as the redaction question and the nature of the original tradition. The former question will be looked at below, but the latter will have to await further study. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR APPLICATION It is difficult to ascertain the exact context in which Paul is applying this tradition. Perhaps it has to do with taxes, but this is in no way a certainty. The best that can be said is that his audience is in Rome and Paul had no doubts that Christians and the state would soon have dealings; especially in the capital city. For this reason he instructs the church on the relationship they must maintain with the state. Peter on the other hand, is dealing with false accusations arising from the populace and directed at Christians (2:11, 12). He appears to take Christian tradition on church-state relations and applies it to the Christians so that the state will not entertain the accusations and decide to persecute the Church. That is, the Christians are to silence the slander by doing good and in this way the state will not be provoked to disciplinary measures (cf. 2:15). PAUL'S THEOLOGY OF THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE STATE Paul maintains a solid commitment to originating all civil authority in God's appointment (13:1-2). Peter does not explicate such ideas as clearly. But, with the presence of ktivsei (1 Pet 2:13), it is possible to see traces of this idea. For Peter, because the authorities are created human beings, they owe their origin to the Creator God . Paul goes much further than Peter does in expanding on these ideas. He refers to the state as the diavkono" and leitourgoiv of God. This is absent in Peter. On the other hand, Peter urges submission to the state, based in part on the theology of the Christian's freedom (cf. 1:18; 2:16). THE ULTIMATE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE Both Paul and Peter materially agree on this as pointed out above. But Paul goes much further than Peter does. He talks about the power of the state to legitimately determine life and death. For Paul the state does not bear the sword for nothing, and, as such, acts as God's avenger for the meting out of punishment. Perhaps such an idea is inherent in ejkdivkhsin in 1 Peter 2:14, but it is not spelled out as clearly as in Paul. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS There are a fair number of further similarities and differences that were not mentioned as they seem to be relatively minor to the task at hand. The similarities that are mentioned, however, are enough to demonstrate that while there does not appear to be literary dependence (though such a possibility is open on chronological/historical considerations), both Paul and Peter appear to be drawing on a similar Christian tradition. The differences in emphases concerning the rationale for the command to submit can probably be accounted for on the basis of the different historical situations to which each was writing. The overall structure of the passages is similar and both emphatically maintain that the Christian's relation to the state is to be one of submission. This is an important fact. Thus, both Paul and Peter agree in large measure on the origin (i.e., in God), nature (i.e. rulers invested with authority) and function (i.e. to punish and to praise) of the state and certainly on the Christian's relationship to it (i.e., submission). Given the strength of the similarities it would seem that Paul and Peter are drawing on a common stock of paraenetic material for their instruction, but the differences appear to rule out any direct literary dependence, i.e., Peter using Romans as a direct source. The origin of this material appears to be found in the LXX and Jesus' teaching in the Synoptic tradition (cf. Mark 13:13-17). Questions concerning the Christians' relationship to the authorities was addressed in the early church (cf. Acts 4, 7, 19:23ff, 25, 26, 28) and ultimately the traditional material we find in Peter and Paul seems to have been molded as catechetical material in the Hellenistic context of the mission to the Gentiles. I truly believe I know what the passage means, but that of course would be only my interpretation and expressed as an opinion.
There are no replies to Comment # 15. End Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest When It Comes to Pot, Pain, and Cancer, Jeff Sessions Is An Idiot
A portion of that statement may be true, but Jess Sessions’ primary duty to our great nation is not to deal with pain and cancer. It is his sworn obligation to enforce the laws of the land and that includes laws involving marijuana. Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following ...
Be it recognized that Jeff Sessions is also an “oath keeper” who took an oath and is fulfilling that oath: The federal government requires civil servants to sign a loyalty oath to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the state and national constitutions, and to defend both documents "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Employees must also pledge to perform the jobs for which they have been hired.
Why do you praise the “Oath Keepers” for keeping their oath, and at the same time side with people who want Jeff Sessions to violate his oath and ignore laws that you do not like? Is there some rational to this dilemma that you can explain to everyone? Romans 13:1-14 (English Standard Version) -
Do you pick and choose which Biblical Laws to follow?
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ...
#7. To: Gatlin, Satan, FEMA preachers, Clergy Response Team, Evil Government Not Ordained by God, Deckard (#6)
#8. To: hondo68, gatlin (#7)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#8)
I only posted scripture verbatim for everyone to read. Brother Ken gave his opinion on about the scripture. An opinion is like an asshole….everybody has one. You're lying about the Bible.
And that was “despicable.” Virtually every serious commentary on the book of Romans has had to wrestle with the integrity of the last two chapters of the work, especially chapter 16.1 But, this is not the only place in the epistle where Pauline authenticity has been questioned. There are those, who for several different reasons, reject 13:1-7 as truly from the hand of Paul.2 One such interpreter who has advanced some of the strongest arguments in favor of Romans 13:1-7 as an interpolation (i.e., a later insertion into the text) is James Kallas.3
This study continues here.
STRUCTURAL SIMILARITIES
The Asyndetic Nature of the Passages
OVERALL CONTENT Forget what Brother Ken tells you to think. Read and then think on your own and decide for yourself what the scripture says. You need no one to interpret it for you. God gave you a mind to think with….it’s best to use that mind and not let someone spoon feed you’re their ideas.
Replies to Comment # 15.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]