Something a bit more localized

Sioux reservation's problems with alcohol

I've been taking a casual interest in this one for awhile. These claims of "bootlegging" stem from a dispute with Whiteclay, NE, just across the border from them. The tribal leaders can't seem to make everyone in the tribe abide by their alcohol ban, and these "bootleggers" are buying legal alcohol from legal retailers. The tribe's argument basically boils down to the expectation that private merchants in a different fucking state serve as unpaid tribal policy enforcement officers and refuse to sell alcohol to adults with every legal right to buy it. Since leaving it at that makes it sound too much like another failed fascist war on free will, they try to keep the focus on underage drinking, selling to intoxicated persons, and allowing them to drink on or near the premises. But the real problem is that the tribe can't control their own people, and everybody knows it, so here we have this ballot initiative.

"I can't allow you to make your own decisions. Why, you might make the wrong one!"

Is this close to Kearney, NE? On the highway to Rapid City? If so... I have never seen a highway with more deaths on it in person than that one. :|

You should stop talking now.

These bootleggers are subject to the laws of their reservation, unless a specific congressional act supersedes the authority of the reservations, it is assumed that power is delegated to the reservations. So if the reservation wants to ban alcohol, they have every legal right to do so.

Are they posessing/drinking alcohol on the reservation? No. The end.

That does not obligate every retailer in three fucking counties to refuse alcohol sales to members of their tribe.

Your article disagrees with you. What do you think a bootlegger is?

No, and if that's what this referendum was about, you might have a point. They have no legal right to demand that those businesses be shut down, so it's entirely a moot point.

In this context, the "bootlegger" is either just a member of the tribe who bought a whole bunch of beer (which doesn't distinguish them from anyone else who defies the tribal law), or some enterprising outsider who buys it and meets up with them elsewhere, in which case the "bootlegger" never sets foot on the reservation.

It's not what this referendum is about, you fucking pedantic ass hammer. Did I not mention a back story leading up to it? I believe I fucking did.

No, in this context a bootlegger is a fucking bootlegger you idiot. They admit that alcohol is a problem on the reservation, which means people are buying it off the reservation and transporting it back to the reservation.

Considering your reading comprehension problems, and your problems with the definition of words, I wasn't sure.

No crime is committed until the booze crosses the border. I can fill my jeep with beer and drive from one end of the state to the other and not be cited for anything. These "bootleggers" are a scapegoat for a failure of social moderation and individual willpower. It's hyperbole for shock value, so no surprise that you seize on it to the exclusion of everything else.

What am I excluding here? Their doomed to fail attempts to get businesses outside the reservation shut down? I so don't give a shit.

As for the rest, they are bootleggers, just because they aren't Al Capone doesn't mean they don't fit the textbook definition.

You can use whatever term you want. Until they cross the border of that reservation, they have broken no laws, and nobody has any business interfering with their free movement. If they do cross the border, they are most likely an enterprising member of the tribe. Calling that person a "bootlegger" might make them sound extra special villainous in your head, but they're really just another member of the tribe who refuses to surrender their right to defile their body as they see fit.

What you are excluding is the real meat of the story. Villifying law-abiding merchants for failing to protect people in a neighboring state from their own weak wills. Reading up on this, it's like those tribal elders and every misinformed activist douchenozzle that takes up their cause want to package up all the failures of their tribal society and heap them on some people who sell beer.

It's amazing how after all these years I can still be taken aback by his obtuseness.

Bitchcakes here to grace us with more ivory tower wisdom? Fuck off.

No, just here to point and laugh at the monkey's latest antics.

So you've got nothing. Not even bothering to couch your bitchyness in the hollow pretense of discussion..

No, because "woman's rights" (by which, I presume, you mean "abortion") involves the life of another person, and so is a different situation entirely.

What's to discuss? The article is talking about actual bootlegging. Nick is talking about actual bootlegging. You've decided to make up a new definition of bootlegging and throw a hissy fit that no one wants to engage you on your straw man.

It's fucking hilarious. Nothing to discuss, but plenty to laugh about.

That's it? Dictionary pedantry about a peripheral detail to the issue at hand? Fucking christ. I wish I could say I was surprised. The article is not about bootlegging. It's about a ballot initiative to legalize alcohol.

Yes, once someone crosses the border of the reservation, they are illegally transporting alcohol, and that doesn't begin to describe the big picture, so belaboring that one minor detail is fucking pointless.

And according to you, the big picture here is that people are trying to get businesses shut down, even though they have absolutely zero legal grounds to do so, so it's a complete non-starter. These businesses are not on the reservation, they are not subject to the laws of the reservation anymore than you or I would be.

The real story here is the ballet proposal, and whether prohibition actually works. In my mind it doesn't, but this is ultimately up to the people of the reservation as they are their own quasi-sovereign entity.

How anyone could sell alcohol anywhere near Indian reservations and look at themselves in a mirror is beyond me. I 'm not for prohibition and the idea of telling someone off of a reservation that they have to shut down is an obvious non-starter, but with alcoholism rates approaching 75% you can't blame someone for not necessarily thinking clearly about the issue.

What we've got here is the crossroads of a legal and moral issue:

Yes selling booze is legal. Selling booze with the near certainty that it will end up fueling an alcoholism epidemic on an Indian reservation is disgusting and immoral, but it ain't illegal.

That doesn't seem to be the issue, though, at least not as I understand Albert's description. The tribe wants to extend authority over activities outside tribal jurisdiction, that's a no-go in my opinion. The tribe has every right to enact morality legislation covering tribal land, but they can't control sales elsewhere. To turn the argument around a bit, what if Nebraska tried to outlaw no tax cigarette sales on the reservation?

UA may be claiming that, but it is not supported by the article he posted. That article was all about the effectiveness of the current ban (bootleggers are still bringing booze in) in the context of a ballot measure to repeal it.

NO ONE, except the voices in UAs drug addled mind are saying the tribe should have power outside their Res.

Well I don't know about that. He posted a recent article, but then stated that there is an on-going and larger story, which he goes on to explain. I think we should discuss the larger story rather than focus on whether this particular article covers the issue completely.

No.

The idea of guilt over someone else's choices is alien to me. Nobody is jamming a funnel in anyone's face and forcing them to drink. Your choice, your responsibility, your fucking guilt.

Not official authority. It's more accurate to say that they'd like to see the law of a neighboring state applied selectively, to serve the agenda of the tribal leadership and their misguided activist suppporters. And they're not above trying to bind the whole subject to stuff like underage drinking and prostitution if it helps them twist the right arms.

No.

This kind of... well... this kind of "Politically Correct Racism" is baffling to me.

That's because it's neither politically correct nor racism.

Quiet, kid. Adults are talking.

Adults tend to have at least a basic knowledge of biology.

Why do you call this politically correct racism? Selling alcohol to Indians is actively compounding the tragedies that have happened to these people. I agree its legal, but I cannot ignore the negative impact it has on these people. Research has shown that there are genetic reasons that Indians are not able to handle alcohol. That is not racism it is science.