Smallc Posted February 12, 2012 Report Posted February 12, 2012 I'm still not sure why anyone should be targeted. Someone is obviously buying the beer, and the town isn't a dry town, so.... Quote
Shady Posted February 12, 2012 Report Posted February 12, 2012 I'm still not sure why anyone should be targeted. Someone is obviously buying the beer, and the town isn't a dry town, so.... I tend to agree. If somebody comes into your store, to buy a legal product, are you suppose to ask them where they're taking that product or where they're going to consume that product? Are you suppose to refuse to serve somebody you think may take that product across to the reserve? And how would you determine whether somebody was going to do that or not? They way the look? Race? Appearance? I think that the reserve has a legitimate concern, but I just don't know how it can be addressed in accordance with current law. Perhaps addressing the underlying issues of why somebody abuses alcohol, and focusing on prevention and education might be a better solution. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted February 12, 2012 Report Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) I tend to agree. If somebody comes into your store, to buy a legal product, are you suppose to ask them where they're taking that product or where they're going to consume that product? Are you suppose to refuse to serve somebody you think may take that product across to the reserve? And how would you determine whether somebody was going to do that or not? They way the look? Race? Appearance? Actually, where I live, in some cases they are supposed to ask. Case in point. Alcohol is cheaper in Wisconsin than it is in Michigan, so Michiganders aren't supposed to bring large amounts of alcohol across the border - and if they are buying what would be perceived as more than what would be considered 'normal' for personal use, the retailer is supposed to question it. Furthermore, if stopped by the police in Michigan, said purchaser of large amounts of alcohol could be in legal trouble. How are you supposed to tell? If one person is buying an inordinate amount of alcohol in a basically dry area, it should raise a flag. I think that the reserve has a legitimate concern, but I just don't know how it can be addressed in accordance with current law. Perhaps addressing the underlying issues of why somebody abuses alcohol, and focusing on prevention and education might be a better solution. We aren't lawyers, much less specialized in that area, so it stands to reason that we wouldn't understand all of the possible legalities. As for your suggestion, methinks that's already been done. Edited February 12, 2012 by American Woman Quote
Guest Peeves Posted February 12, 2012 Report Posted February 12, 2012 Shady, you knucklehead, read the articles. The fetal alcohol syndrome statistic is for the Pine Ridge reservation, South Dakota, which has about 30,000 people and has banned alcohol to try to combat alcohol abuse and fetal alcohol syndrome. The town with 10 people and 4 liquor stores is Whiteclay Nebraska, just across the border, outside the liquor ban. And it appears obvious that the only possible explanation for why a town of 10 people needs 5 million cans of beer a year is if they're providing the residents of Pine Ridge a way to circumvent the ban. -k You made my day. I'm pretty much tired though of those that refuse to take responsibility for their own choices. Who is forcing the imbibers to drink? Given free choice the choice is abuse. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted February 12, 2012 Report Posted February 12, 2012 I'm pretty much tired though of those that refuse to take responsibility for their own choices. Who is forcing the imbibers to drink? Given free choice the choice is abuse. The babies born with FAS have no choices. I hear you, but I'm tired of those who take advantage for their own profit, too - when they clearly know the harm it causes. What about their responsibilities? Quote
eyeball Posted February 12, 2012 Report Posted February 12, 2012 The babies born with FAS have no choices. No, choice is not attributed to their actions until they grow up and start committing crimes. Interestingly enough any responsibility for complicity in their poisoning seem to fade away about the same time. I'd be suing the government too. That said, I guess if I was a beer company lawyer I'd be basing my defence on the government licence that legitimizes the production and sale of my client's products. What choice would I have? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.