Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

[c1ue]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...r-6792214.html

It doesn't take a genius to work out how the rural town of Whiteclay, Nebraska, which has a population of exactly 11, can support four off-licences selling around five million cans of beer each year. Roughly 20 minutes' drive north, across the South Dakota border, lies the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, home to 20,000 Native Americans, which suffers one of the most severe alcohol problems found anywhere in the developed world.

No less than 85 per cent of local families contain at least one alcoholic, while one in four children born there suffer foetal disorders caused by alcohol abuse. Life expectancy is between 45 and 52, the shortest average lifespan of any community in the western hemisphere outside Haiti. With this in mind, elders of Pine Ridge's Oglala Sioux tribe have decided to pursue a very modern-day solution to their modern-day problem: they are taking their fight against the "great remover" to the country's compensation courts.

A lawsuit filed last week against America's biggest brewing companies, Anheuser-Busch, InBev, SABMiller, Molson Coors, MillerCoors and Pabst, along with the four off-licences in Whiteclay, seeks $500m (£310m) in damages for their alleged encouragement of the "illegal sale and trade in alcohol" to members of the tribe.

The Oglala Sioux tribe has outlawed drink on its property, in line with its legal rights, and therefore claims that both the brewers and local liquor stores are selling their products in the knowledge that they will be smuggled into the reservation for illicit consumption and resale. "The illegal sale and trade in alcohol in Whiteclay is open, notorious and well documented by news reports, legislative hearings, movies, public protests and law enforcement activities," the lawsuit reads.

Tom White, the lawyer representing the tribe, told Associated Press that he had no wish to outlaw legitimate beer sales in the town. But he wanted to prevent store owners selling it in vast quantities to people who are clearly intent on smuggling it over the border. "You cannot sell 4.9 million 12oz [356ml] cans of beer and wash your hands like Pontius Pilate, and say we've got nothing to do with it being smuggled," he said, noting that the quantity equates to 250 cans per year per resident of the reservation. Pine Ridge is the only major population centre within reach of Whiteclay's off-licences.

The tribe says the $500m compensation will reimburse it for the cost of providing healthcare, social services and child rehabilitation, and describes the lawsuit as its last resort in the battle to curb alcohol abuse. None of the store owners, or brewing firms, has yet responded to the claim.

Legal experts say that the Oglala Sioux may be on to something. Thomas Horton, a law professor at the University of South Dakota, said the claim could have implications across the country. Native Americans have a famously destructive relationship with alcohol, and the abuse at Pine Ridge is mirrored in communities across the US. If their claim succeeds, dozens more could follow.

The reason for the disproportionate levels of alcoholism among Native Americans divides experts. Some scientists suggest they have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Others blame cultural factors, including high unemployment and social disenchantment in their communities.

[Raz]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

Show me where and when Coors or Busch held their tribesmen down and forced the evil brew down their throat and then I'll stop laughing. This is part of what's wrong with our "justice" system. The sale wasn't illegal because it didn't happen on reservation land. The lawyers who filed this should have it dismissed with prejudice and be sanctioned under Rule 11 for all costs involved.

[c1ue]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

Show me where and when Coors or Busch held their tribesmen down and forced the evil brew down their throat and then I'll stop laughing. This is part of what's wrong with our "justice" system. The sale wasn't illegal because it didn't happen on reservation land. The lawyers who filed this should have it dismissed with prejudice and be sanctioned under Rule 11 for all costs involved.

Unfortunately, whatever you think, the precedent for the lawsuit is very well entrenched: the tobacco settlement, the mortgage settlement, etc etc are all excellent examples.

And I do think you would agree that there is a clear violation of the spirit of the law going on here, even if not the letter.

[Raz]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

Unfortunately, whatever you think, the precedent for the lawsuit is very well entrenched: the tobacco settlement, the mortgage settlement, etc etc are all excellent examples.

And I do think you would agree that there is a clear violation of the spirit of the law going on here, even if not the letter.

The tobacco settlement involved companies who continued to LIE about the toxic effects of their product when consumed in any amount, and some evidence came forth that during the 1950s they attempted to cover up and/or intentionally mislead as to the known effects of tobacco smoke. I wouldn't say it was apples vs. oranges, but the differences with this case are real.

What should the owners of a business in one state do to conform to the "spirit" of the laws of another state? Refuse to sell beer to anyone who cannot show a Nebraska Driver's License? What if the purchasor had a Nebraska license but then took the beer into South Dakota?
There are numerous examples within the United States where a tiny little town - even an unincorporated hamlet - has a package beer or liquor business where almost all of their sales are to the residents of an adjoining county that's dry. Should they be sued for selling to residents of said dry county?

And what should Busch and Coors do - cut off sales to their distributors in eastern Nebraska?

The only clear culprits that I see are the drunkards themselves.

[c1ue]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

Should they be sued for selling to residents of said dry county?

It should noted that the lawsuit isn't over the act of selling alcohol to an otherwise 'dry' sovereign nation, the lawsuit is an attempt by said sovereign entity to recover the damages caused by said act.

If you review the tobacco settlement, it is the same exact precedent.

Whether tobacco companies lied or not (and they did), the lies weren't the basis for the lawsuit nor settlement.

As for your comments concerning 'spirit' - frankly I am puzzled.

Are you saying that simply because the letter of the law is being followed here, even though it is egregiously obvious that the alcohol sales are for the purpose of breaking the law right next door, that all is fine?

Frankly that type of attitude is exactly why we have ever more ridiculous and detailed laws - because otherwise the only way to prohibit bad behavior is to specify every single possible variation of it.

I'm also curious as to whether you think other egregious forms of lawbreaking relating to substance abuse are also perfectly fine - because it is the fault of the abusers: underage people getting legal age people to buy/gift alcohol, 'borrowing' unused prescription drugs for recreational purposes, etc etc.

[davidstvz]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

Win or lose, they should obtain bucket loads of Naltrexone and offer it to anyone who wants to sober up.

The drug (an old non-patented drug) blocks opioid receptors in the brain. You just take it about an hour before you start drinking and then drink as normal. With the drug in your system, you still get drunk but the opioid system cannot be triggered by the alcohol. This not only prevents you from becoming further addicted, it makes you less addicted with each session.

The science in the book is interesting, and the story surrounding the development of the drug and The Sinclair Method (TSM) is disheartening. TSM was discovered and patented by a different company than the one that owned the drug, but the one that owned the drug refused to mention anything about it in marketing materials. Instead, they advocated taking the drug and abstaining (a combination which clinical trials prove to be completely ineffective). The problem with TSM is that there is no money in it because it's an outpatient treatment, and worse it's a cure. It also exposes any professional who recommends it to legal trouble. Imagine a doctor telling an alcoholic, "take this pill and go drink as much as you like!" Or imagine telling an alcoholic who is successfully abstaining (for now), "You know, you can take this drug and and start drinking again! Eventually it will make you a non-alcoholic again like magic!"

It sounds too good to be true, but the science was convincing to me. I've soon youtube diaries of serious alcoholics using the stuff to sober up.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

Note that the US government intrudes on other countries to attempt to stop the sale of drugs that are illegal in the U.S.

[Raz]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

It should noted that the lawsuit isn't over the act of selling alcohol to an otherwise 'dry' sovereign nation, the lawsuit is an attempt by said sovereign entity to recover the damages caused by said act.

If you review the tobacco settlement, it is the same exact precedent.

Whether tobacco companies lied or not (and they did), the lies weren't the basis for the lawsuit nor settlement.

As for your comments concerning 'spirit' - frankly I am puzzled.

Are you saying that simply because the letter of the law is being followed here, even though it is egregiously obvious that the alcohol sales are for the purpose of breaking the law right next door, that all is fine?

Frankly that type of attitude is exactly why we have ever more ridiculous and detailed laws - because otherwise the only way to prohibit bad behavior is to specify every single possible variation of it.

I'm also curious as to whether you think other egregious forms of lawbreaking relating to substance abuse are also perfectly fine - because it is the fault of the abusers: underage people getting legal age people to buy/gift alcohol, 'borrowing' unused prescription drugs for recreational purposes, etc etc.

You have read my posts for at least three years and by now you should know that I'm not unreasonable. So no, I do NOT believe it's okay for the beer sellers in Whiteclay, Nebraska to make sales for the purpose of breaking the law in South Dakota.

IF they are selling the beer to individuals one or two or three cases at a time, then it's NOT clear that it is for the purpose of resale; if they're selling to one person by the truckload each time then it is obviously being done for resale, and that's likely illegal in Nebraska - not to mention clear complicity in furnishing beer to the residents of the reservation in South Dakota.

I would ask you a couple of questions: (1) What is the fault of the abusers of alcohol who are clearly breaking their tribal law in South Dakota? Do they qualify as innocent victims of predatory retailers? (2) Where are the Reservation Police? Why don't they apprehend and prosecute the importers and resellers of all this beer? Is it the responsibility of the Whiteclay retailer to follow every person to whom they sell three cases of beer out of town to see whether or not they take their purchase into South Dakota? Should they "profile" their customers and decline to sell beer to any "Native American"? (3) Where are the South Dakota authorities? The beer is being imported into their jurisdiction without being taxed.

Purchasing alcoholic beverages and then giving or reselling them to minors is specifically prohibited by statute in every state, the only exceptions are for parents who allow their minor children to consume such beverages within their own home, so your question makes little sense to me and seems to be for the purpose of making me out to be a nut-case rather than for any clarification of my position. (I'm not in favor of wife-beating either.) Nor do I favor the breaking of any just laws. I must now insert that disclaimer because my country has become something I never thought I'd live to see.

Unless the Whiteclay retailers are clearly selling for the known purpose of resale I fail to see how they are breaking any laws within their jurisdiction of Nebraska.

Their civil liability is another question altogether.

[DSpencer]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...r-6792214.html

What an absolute crock.

A group of people wants to be paid damages for THEIR OWN DRINKING PROBLEM?

Should every auto manufacturer be sued because they know that 90% of the cars they sold will be driven in excess of the speed limit, potentially causing bodily harm and fatalities?

The lawyers who filed this should have it dismissed with prejudice and be sanctioned under Rule 11 for all costs involved.

Agreed.

[don]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

love the tobacco legal precedent . . . file under 'You Can't Make This Up" . . . .

the whites are getting better, first they tried to eat it.
"Hey, you have the pipe upside down!"
a slow-to-learn people . . .

[c1ue]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

You have read my posts for at least three years and by now you should know that I'm not unreasonable. So no, I do NOT believe it's okay for the beer sellers in Whiteclay, Nebraska to make sales for the purpose of breaking the law in South Dakota.

IF they are selling the beer to individuals one or two or three cases at a time, then it's NOT clear that it is for the purpose of resale; if they're selling to one person by the truckload each time then it is obviously being done for resale, and that's likely illegal in Nebraska - not to mention clear complicity in furnishing beer to the residents of the reservation in South Dakota.

Fair enough.

What you wrote above is quite reasonable, the problem of course is that there is no question whatsoever that the liquor licenses in Whiteclay, with its population of 11, are almost 100% exclusively for the purpose of selling to Indians coming from the reservation.

Certainly the above statement could be false; it is quite simple to disprove if Whiteclay was in fact a mecca for beer buyers for 100 miles around it. There are some towns in the 20 to 40 mile range; it shouldn't be difficult at all to see just how many beers the various venders there sell.

I'd bet it isn't anywhere near 5 million/1.25 million per license.

Some industry numbers:

http://business.highbeam.com/industr.../liquor-stores

In 2009, according to the Dun & Bradstreet, there were 35,582 establishments engaged in the retail sale of packaged alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises, which generated over $16 billion in sales, with the average beer, wine, or liquor store accounting for about $500,000.

Seriously, are you really trying to take the position that the (presumably) 4 beer sellers in Whiteclay are each doing the type of business a Liquor Barn or Bevmo does?

I would ask you a couple of questions: (1) What is the fault of the abusers of alcohol who are clearly breaking their tribal law in South Dakota? Do they qualify as innocent victims of predatory retailers?

From my point of view, severe alcoholism is a disease. Research has shown that alcoholism has a very large genetic component; this does not mean that an alcoholic has no free will but it does mean that a large group of such people will have a very disproportionate number of alcoholics.

So from a free will perspective, certainly the individual alcoholics made the choice to buy beer in Whiteclay.

However, I disagree that all fault resides in these individuals.

I employ the same view I do with regards to real estate: sure the signatures on each mortgage are that of individuals, but the reality is that each and every one of these individuals was being bombarded by constant propaganda pushing them to buy. Equally many of these mortgages were being actively pushed by mortgage brokers, as well as many mortgage lenders actively committing fraud on said mortgages.

(2) Where are the Reservation Police? Why don't they apprehend and prosecute the importers and resellers of all this beer? Is it the responsibility of the Whiteclay retailer to follow every person to whom they sell three cases of beer out of town to see whether or not they take their purchase into South Dakota? Should they "profile" their customers and decline to sell beer to any "Native American"?

I'd say that while the Reservation Police do have the responsibility of enforcing the law - it is a false premise that only the Reservation Police have the duty of seeing that laws are upheld.

(3) Where are the South Dakota authorities? The beer is being imported into their jurisdiction without being taxed.

This is a non-sequitur. I'm sure Whiteclay is paying all appropriate liquor and sales taxes for Nebraska. As far as I understand (which isn't very far), the Indian reservations are sovereign and thus the South Dakota authorities don't matter.

Purchasing alcoholic beverages and then giving or reselling them to minors is specifically prohibited by statute in every state, the only exceptions are for parents who allow their minor children to consume such beverages within their own home, so your question makes little sense to me and seems to be for the purpose of making me out to be a nut-case rather than for any clarification of my position. (I'm not in favor of wife-beating either.) Nor do I favor the breaking of any just laws. I must now insert that disclaimer because my country has become something I never thought I'd live to see.

And that is my point. Buying alcohol for minors is an obvious violation of the law which prohibits alcohol sales for minors. Rather than use common sense, the American justice system under a 'strict interpretation' aspect requires the spelling out of every possibility, thus leading to more lawyers, more loopholes, and so on and so forth.

Unless the Whiteclay retailers are clearly selling for the known purpose of resale I fail to see how they are breaking any laws within their jurisdiction of Nebraska.

Their civil liability is another question altogether.

I quite agree.

And that is why the lawsuit is a civil one.

No doubt the Oglala nation looked at all their choices:

1) War on Beer on the scale of the War on Drugs: a wall, beer sniffing dogs, BEA (Beer Enforcement Agency), customs forms, etc

2) Trying to get a law passed in Nebraska for the benefit of South Dakotan Indians

3) Suing the beer companies - either recoup losses or discourage supply

[Raz]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

[/COLOR]Fair enough.

What you wrote above is quite reasonable, the problem of course is that there is no question whatsoever that the liquor licenses in Whiteclay, with its population of 11, are almost 100% exclusively for the purpose of selling to Indians coming from the reservation.

Certainly the above statement could be false; it is quite simple to disprove if Whiteclay was in fact a mecca for beer buyers for 100 miles around it. There are some towns in the 20 to 40 mile range; it shouldn't be difficult at all to see just how many beers the various venders there sell.

I'd bet it isn't anywhere near 5 million/1.25 million per license.

Some industry numbers:

http://business.highbeam.com/industr.../liquor-stores



Seriously, are you really trying to take the position that the (presumably) 4 beer sellers in Whiteclay are each doing the type of business a Liquor Barn or Bevmo does?



From my point of view, severe alcoholism is a disease. Research has shown that alcoholism has a very large genetic component; this does not mean that an alcoholic has no free will but it does mean that a large group of such people will have a very disproportionate number of alcoholics.

So from a free will perspective, certainly the individual alcoholics made the choice to buy beer in Whiteclay.

However, I disagree that all fault resides in these individuals.

I employ the same view I do with regards to real estate: sure the signatures on each mortgage are that of individuals, but the reality is that each and every one of these individuals was being bombarded by constant propaganda pushing them to buy. Equally many of these mortgages were being actively pushed by mortgage brokers, as well as many mortgage lenders actively committing fraud on said mortgages.



I'd say that while the Reservation Police do have the responsibility of enforcing the law - it is a false premise that only the Reservation Police have the duty of seeing that laws are upheld.



This is a non-sequitur. I'm sure Whiteclay is paying all appropriate liquor and sales taxes for Nebraska. As far as I understand (which isn't very far), the Indian reservations are sovereign and thus the South Dakota authorities don't matter.



And that is my point. Buying alcohol for minors is an obvious violation of the law which prohibits alcohol sales for minors. Rather than use common sense, the American justice system under a 'strict interpretation' aspect requires the spelling out of every possibility, thus leading to more lawyers, more loopholes, and so on and so forth.[COLOR=#000080]



I quite agree.

And that is why the lawsuit is a civil one.

No doubt the Oglala nation looked at all their choices:

1) War on Beer on the scale of the War on Drugs: a wall, beer sniffing dogs, BEA (Beer Enforcement Agency), customs forms, etc

2) Trying to get a law passed in Nebraska for the benefit of South Dakotan Indians

3) Suing the beer companies - either recoup losses or discourage supply

If the Indians from the Reservation both bought AND CONSUMED the beer in question within the territory of Nebraska
would you then say that the Whiteclay retailers had a responsibility to refrain from selling the beer to them?

While I share your view that alcoholism is a disease of sorts I do not believe that it in any way absolves those who choose to drink it.
And while there are laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to anyone who is visibly intoxicated I'm not at all sure it would allow one to refuse a sale based upon racial or ethnic background.

The Reservation Police do not have a duty to see that the laws of the State of Nebraska are upheld but to see that the laws of their particular jurisdiction are upheld.
For whatever reason (sloth, bribery, drunkenness themselves, etc?) they have failed miserably.

I'm tired of people who have murdered their parents standing before the courts and pleading for mercy because they're orphans.

[DSpencer]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

So the lawsuit names two groups of parties far away in the chain of causation (manufacturers/distributors and stores) but fails to name the two parties most directly responsible (smugglers and drinkers - probably lots of overlap in the two). This is despite the fact that they were also the ones actually breaking the tribe's laws. Presumably because 1)they'd be suing themselves and 2)they need deep pockets - even if the smugglers are outsiders, they probably don't have $500 million.

Why not sue the beer can manufacturers? Or the trucking companies that deliver to the stores? Or the city of Whiteclay?

And why not sue the beer companies for every drunk driving accident or teenage alcohol poisoning?

It's amazing the lengths society will go to in order to avoid holding people responsible for themselves and parents responsible for their children.

[c1ue]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

If the Indians from the Reservation both bought AND CONSUMED the beer in question within the territory of Nebraska
would you then say that the Whiteclay retailers had a responsibility to refrain from selling the beer to them?

I think that this assertion is pretty easy to verify, and equally that I very much doubt that the vast majority of the 4.9 million cans are consumed in Whiteclay.

It isn't like the population of 11 in Whiteclay is going to provide much cover to blend into.

4.9 million cans of beer per year equals 13424 cans of beer per day. Now depending on how many beers you think are being drunk in Whiteclay, 1 per person = 13000 Indians in Whiteclay, with 10 per person yielding 1342 Indians in Whiteclay. So the town population increases anywhere from 1200 times to a mere 120 times. If you posit more beer per person, then the rationale of personal use becomes increasingly increasingly flimsy.

You should also note that these aren't bars, these are retailers.

If 10 beers are being drunk per Indian in Whiteclay, I'd say a whole lot more than winking and nodding is going on as a whole passel of DUI's should be getting passed out.

Seriously, this seems pretty open and shut to me.

So the lawsuit names two groups of parties far away in the chain of causation (manufacturers/distributors and stores) but fails to name the two parties most directly responsible (smugglers and drinkers - probably lots of overlap in the two). This is despite the fact that they were also the ones actually breaking the tribe's laws. Presumably because 1)they'd be suing themselves and 2)they need deep pockets - even if the smugglers are outsiders, they probably don't have $500 million.

Why not sue the beer can manufacturers? Or the trucking companies that deliver to the stores? Or the city of Whiteclay?

And why not sue the beer companies for every drunk driving accident or teenage alcohol poisoning?

It's amazing the lengths society will go to in order to avoid holding people responsible for themselves and parents responsible for their children.

I understand where you're coming from, but this view is in direct contravention to the principle employed in the tobacco lawsuit and subsequent settlement. The precise principle used there was that the tobacco company's products had cost the various states money and the state's wanted it back.

I don't think smoking so much that you get lung cancer is in any way different than drinking so much you become alcoholic.

[Raz]

Re: Another fine example of "good business": Town of 11 sells 4.9 million cans of beer annually

I think that this assertion is pretty easy to verify, and equally that I very much doubt that the vast majority of the 4.9 million cans are consumed in Whiteclay.

It isn't like the population of 11 in Whiteclay is going to provide much cover to blend into.

4.9 million cans of beer per year equals 13424 cans of beer per day. Now depending on how many beers you think are being drunk in Whiteclay, 1 per person = 13000 Indians in Whiteclay, with 10 per person yielding 1342 Indians in Whiteclay. So the town population increases anywhere from 1200 times to a mere 120 times. If you posit more beer per person, then the rationale of personal use becomes increasingly increasingly flimsy.

You should also note that these aren't bars, these are retailers.

If 10 beers are being drunk per Indian in Whiteclay, I'd say a whole lot more than winking and nodding is going on as a whole passel of DUI's should be getting passed out.

Seriously, this seems pretty open and shut to me.

You didn't answer my question. ("IF ... would you then" ...).

I understand where you're coming from, but this view is in direct contravention to the principle employed in the tobacco lawsuit and subsequent settlement. The precise principle used there was that the tobacco company's products had cost the various states money and the state's wanted it back.

I don't think smoking so much that you get lung cancer is in any way different than drinking so much you become alcoholic.

Methinks this is going to be a HUGE source of disagreement between Raz and c1ue.

It seems that the "principle employed" in the tobacco case comes perilously close to one of product liability. Now to use your term of "reasonable", why would the U.S. CONgress not demand that the Executive Branch force a company producing a "defective" product to remedy the defect in said product, or end production of the product entirely?

Could it be (1) they like the ongoing stream of tax revenue, and (2) they remember the lovely side effects of Prohibition? Did the Tobacco Settlement really "settle" the cost to the States? If the defect in cigarettes isn't "cured", then is not the cost to the States ongoing? It seems to me that this entire Tobacco "Settlement" was just another case of Judicial Extortion by a corrupt, self-serving and gutless CONgress - and another way for a bunch of lawyers to get filthy rich. (Google: Dickie Scruggs.)

"Smoking so much that you get Lung Cancer?" There's probably a dozen known carcinogens in tobacco smoke and the complaints about "second-hand smoke" are ongoing - witness the explosion of campaigns for "Smoke Free" restaurants, buildings - even municipalities. ANY amount of inhaled tobacco smoke is definitely harmful while moderate amounts of beer or wine are not only not harmful, but with red wine there are more than a few physicians who claim moderate consumption is actually beneficial.

Show me that these lawyers have taken up the "Cause" pro bono and I'll drop one layer of my cynicism. But I still see far more responsibility among the Indians themselves than I do any retailers in Whiteclay.