January 16, 2007
Alcohol Sales Have "Infringed On Our Rights"

The Yakima Herald-Republic reports tribal plaintiff Marlene White is suing for enforcement of an 1855 treaty and federal liquor laws, to uphold an alcohol ban approved by the Yakima Nation six years ago. Forty-plus businesses on the rez still sell alcohol, plus a few more in non-Native towns within. White argues Natives can't help themselves, so government must.

...White says alcohol has caused only harm to tribal members since being brought here more than 150 years ago. "We don't want to infringe on anyone's rights," she said. "It has infringed on our rights."

Admittedly, alcohol abuse takes a serious toll in America, on and off reservations. But alcohol itself does not infringe on anyone's rights; the problems stem from those who choose to abuse it.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 16, 2007 11:05 AM | Email This
Comments
1. I feel the same way about Native-operated gambling casinos.

Let's ban them, too.

Posted by: Rey Smith on January 16, 2007 10:50 AM
2. I know that this is a minefield comment. It is my understanding that some ethnic groups, individuals, and even some families have more of a predisposition toward alcoholism. If one believes that it is a disease because of that predisposition, then is it really a choice? I suppose the first drink is a choice. I personaly know some individuals, who because of their family history will not touch alcohol because they are afraid of the "family curse."
I'm sure that evidence regarding the effect of alcohol on the Native American popultion will have to be introduced.

Posted by: WVH on January 16, 2007 10:50 AM
3. I too feel the same way about Native-operated gambling casinos. But since they appear here to stay, at the risk of being called quite a few names - let me pose this question: Since we have nations within a nation who are collectively swimming in cash why are they not held 100% responsible for their tribal members social welfare costs. This would free up resources for others who rely on the public for assistance.

Posted by: JDH on January 16, 2007 11:35 AM
4. I think Ms. White's rhetorical excess is forgivable. Alcoholism doesn't simply take a "serious toll" in Indian Country. It's ablsolutely devestating, undermining the entire social and economic structure of the tribes.

I'm not sure whether the Yakimas' lawsuit has any merit. Probably not. But at least the tribal leaders there are trying to solve the problem by proclaiming zero tolerance for alcohol. This seems somewhat more likely to help than, say, simply telling the tribe members it's all their fault.

Posted by: DJ on January 16, 2007 12:46 PM
5. I have no problem with Native gambling casinos. However, they do enjoy a monopoly of sorts in this state, and that does not appear to be changing any time soon. That is where I have the biggest problem - online gambling a class C felony? What a joke.

Who cares if people want to enjoy gambling? It's a form of entertainment, just like sporting events or the opera. Whatever happened to personal responsibility in this country?

This is another example of nanny-statism. Government needs to stop protecting us from ourselves. Jaywalking tickets, online gambling bans, lap dance arrests, etc, etc. I feel more like a libertarian every day with the morality police around here.

Posted by: Palouse on January 16, 2007 12:47 PM
6. Apparently Native Americans evolved without discovering alcohol. They were introduced to alcohol by the white man without any time to adapt. Therein lies the problem: they did not go through a period of natural selection where those who had the potential for deadly alcohol abuse died-off. Native Americans haven't developed the biolgical defense against alcohol's problems like other cultures did. Maybe this will change in the next 100,000 years or so.

Posted by: Libertarian on January 16, 2007 01:07 PM
7. If it saves the life of just one native American it's all worth it.

Posted by: G Jiggy on January 16, 2007 01:12 PM
8. If it's banned there, they'll get it somewhere else. She can try, but it really isn't the answer. She doesn't realize that, though.

Posted by: Misty on January 16, 2007 01:25 PM
9. can i sue the Tribes for my alleged cumulative hearing damage from their pyrotechnical products sold for the 4th of July?

seems it;s easier to sue today than work, change one's habits & choices or accept personal responsibility. true for gambling, booze and homelessness. or any behavior. sounds cold, i know. why candy-coat it?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 16, 2007 01:42 PM
10. Libertarian, you must be a Guthrieite.

Legalize marijuana!!

Posted by: swatter on January 16, 2007 02:03 PM
11. Personal responsibility is an all or nothing game. I for one, refuse to allow anyone to not exercise it.

Posted by: H Moul on January 16, 2007 02:22 PM
12. So the American Indian tribes got alcohol from the European settlers and it was a disaster to them. They, however, gave the Europeans tobacco. Seems like a fair trade to me.

Posted by: RBW on January 16, 2007 03:01 PM
13. Rey Smith: Hilarious!

Other thought: Amusing comments and deep thoughts about genetics and liberty aside, the more critical issue is the status of a tribe.

Sovereign nation not subject to the Constitution?

OR

Element of state citizenry with some policy protections not enjoyed by the rest of the population?

We may disagree about which is true, but we should not continue to permit tribes to pick and choose based upon whether it suits them in each instance.

Sovereign nation with regard to being governed by environmental law.

State citizen with regard to entitlement programs.

Sovereign nation with regard to tax obligations of tribal entities.

State citizen with regard to the state's duty to build infrastructure.

The list of examples goes on and on.

Posted by: anon on January 16, 2007 05:11 PM
14. Not so fast. Encarta offers an interesting little bit of history about alcohol and Native Americans:

"Alcoholic beverages were used in some parts of North America before European contact. The Tohono O'Odham of the Southwest fermented syrup of the saguaro (a type of cactus) into wine for their four-day saguaro wine feast, a ritual intended to bring the summer monsoons. By saturating themselves with saguaro wine, they prayed that life-giving rain would likewise saturate the parched earth of the Sonoran Desert.

Many tribes used hallucinogenic plants--plants or plant derivatives that produce hallucinations when ingested--to enhance their religious rites and bring them into closer contact with the Great Spirit. The most common hallucinogen was peyote, a spineless cactus whose mushroom-shaped caps, or buttons, were dried and chewed or brewed into tea. First used in Mexico and along the Rio Grande, peyote use later spread onto the Great Plains and into Canada. In the late 1800s the Kiowa and Comanche were among the first tribes to adopt the Peyote religion, or Peyotism. In 1918 the Peyote religion was formally incorporated as the Native American Church, which regards peyote as sacred and uses it in religious ceremonies and rituals. Church doctrine stresses brotherly love, family responsibility, self-reliance, and abstinence from alcohol."

Maybe they can't really blame exposure to alcohol ENTIRELY on European/American settler influence.

Posted by: katomar on January 16, 2007 09:03 PM
15. hmmm--all those hallucinogens will get them in touch with the Great Spirit, alright. But it won't be the one they think it is.

Posted by: Misty on January 16, 2007 09:09 PM
16. If alcohol is banned from the reservation, I'll bet that the tribe will make an exception for their own casinos. After all, getting the white man tipsy can lead to a larger cash crop.

Posted by: NorWester on January 17, 2007 12:18 PM
17. It is impossible to store fruit and not get alcohol.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on January 18, 2007 04:50 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?