Something a bit more localized

Oh, you're gonna have to provide some evidence of that one. Most "adults" I know are deleriously ignorant.

You have to wonder if it's the association of "sin" with alcohol that colors the opinion, or would Chaos consider it "racism" to point out the differences in incidence of diabetes by ethnicity?



ETA: As a bonus, the labeling on that chart is gonna send Uncle Angry into paroxysms...

Pretty much anything will do that. More interestingly, a few people won't see the last two rows.

It's not their fault, native peoples worldwide can't process the refined sugars.

Still don't see prohibition as a solution, causes more problems than it solves, IMHO.

Exactly. That's the only point Mike and I were trying to make. CD had to try to spin it into something else.

Agreed. Eventually someone will isolate the gene sequence and/or develop some sort of substance to compensate for this and other food sensitivities. In the meantime, whattaya gonna do?

I don't have that. Jesus drank wine. Good enough for me.

What does a higher incidence of diabetes in Native Americans have to do with the unspoken assumption that Native Americans are unable to take care of themselves and handle their own drinking habits, relative to say, white folks?

That's not what MikeH said.

He didn't have to say it. Without that unspoken assumption, there's no need for the comment MikeH made.

If you filter it through the FOXNews kneejerk mentality, yeah.

Evidence please.

As evenflow said, most native peoples can't handle refined sugars. The diabetes chart upthread shows a breakdown.

I don't watch FoxNews.

Then you've developed your own version of "Anything anyone less conservative than I am says is touchy-feelie PC b.s." Congratulations on your creativity.

If you're definition of racism includes refusing to help foster someone's social problem then we're coming at it from different angles.

That's a very, very, very bizarre deduction. Not even remotely supported by any sort of evidence or inference.

I'm saying that treating any racial group as a monolithic entity can lead to sterotyping.

"Indians are all drunks, and it's therefore bad to sell booze close to the reservation" seems to be the stereotype that you're perpetuating, whether you intend to or don't.

How do you think people would react if I had said "How anyone could sell malt liquor anywhere near black neighborhoods and look at themselves in a mirror is beyond me"?

And it's irrelevant.

You don't lose the freedom to choose just because you're a member of a group for whom, statistically, the costs of exercising that freedom is higher. Because by that logic, people should not have been allowed to protest segregation in Alabama in 1958, as their exercise of free speech carried a significantly higher risk of bodily injury than ordinary folks'.

Aside from the fact that it's counter to the idea of a free society, it also degenerates into the endless meddling of a nanny state.

White, Indian, or purple-polka-dotted person, if someone wants to drink, he should have the liberty to do so. If he becomes an alcoholic, he becomes an alcoholic. If he gets diabetes, he gets diabetes. If (when) he dies, he dies.

Life has risks and downsides. Quit trying to insulate people from these by taking away their choices. Live your own damned life.

Tell me which of these statements is racist:

Native Americans lack the genes for baldness.

Native Americans lack the genes for thick facial hair.

Native Americans lack the genes that cause negative physical reactions to excessive alcohol consumption.

"Some people have genetic dispositions that make them more prone to heart disease than others."

Would you legislate what these people can eat? How about that they take certain medications? That they exercise regularly?

"People with the human leukocyte antigen HLA-B*1502 can have dangerous, often fatal reactions to epilepsy medications."

Prescribe them regardless?

This one: "Native Americans aren't able to manage their own affairs, so we shouldn't sell alcohol next to reservations".

Doesn't compute.

What does legislating someone into doing something potentially fatal have to do with legislating away someone's CHOICE to do something unhealthy?

You're Souix now?

Is there any drug or currently illegal substance you wouldn't fully support being sold in every convenience store?

No one is "Souix".

Where in my post is there anything about legislation? Or did you read "prescribe" and think "legislate"?

By illegal substance, do you include nerve gas or aerosolized anthrax?

I'm assuming you mean narcotics and such, and the short answer is: No.

The slightly longer answer is: for substances that have can cause IMMEDIATE fatality or profound illness, or that can cause physical addiction, I would be comfortable with making sure the customer is aware of the risks at the time of purchase.

Let me say it this way: I'm comfortable with a shop selling you a gun--a deadly weapon--provided you have no history that disqualifies you. Once the gun is in your possession, the only thing that keeps you from putting it to your own head or someone else's is YOUR CHOICE.

So, if you REALLY want to kill yourself, be my damned guest.

The problem is more complicated then you're making it out to be. The companies know it is illegal to sell, posses, or transport alcohol on the Indian reservation, that's why they set up their shops right next to the reservation, so what liability, if any, does a business have when they know that their products are primarily going to be used in an illegal manner? I.E. smuggled illegally on to tribal lands.

I'm not sure what the answer is but I think it is a very legitimate conversation to have especially since we have rules governing all sorts of legal industries making them responsible if they knowingly provide services to criminals. For example, banks laundering drug money or aiding in the transfer of illegally gotten proceeds.

None.

I'm completely serious. None.

There aren't any sellers of alcohol unless there are buyers of alcohol, whether "bootleggers" are part of the equation or not. If the reservation has a problem with "bootleggers," they should consider why their laws are getting between a buyer and a seller.

Except that a bank laundering money is engaging in criminal activity. A business that sells a legal product to a buyer is not.

I'm not going to do it. Hey if you can do it and look yourself in the mirror that's your karma, not mine. I'm not kidding myself substance abusers of all stripes will find ways to feed their demons, thus I am not for prohibition, nor would I be for making it illegal for someone to set up shop outside of a reservation. I just simply am willing to make my own choice not to be party to selling a substance that is responsible for so much hardship. I don't think that's condescending or paternalistic. I can't solve their problem for them (and don't want to try, I have problems of my own) but I don't see how voluntarily refraining from doing something that will make things worse is the same thing as racism. As a white person of no power, wealth or influence I think that's about all I can do.