Indian Tribe Suing Beer Companies For Alcohol Problems

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Tribe Suing Beer Companies For Alcohol Problems

An American Indian tribe is suing some of the world’s largest beer makers, claiming they knowingly contributed to alcohol-related problems on South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

The Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota filed a federal lawsuit Thursday demanding $500 million from five international beer manufacturers for the cost of health care, social services and child rehabilitation caused by chronic alcoholism on the reservation...

Full story: K2 Radio

Who is responsible for alcoholism?
1) The people who drink the beer.
2) The companies which make the beer.
3) The stores that sell the beer.

[Gravitymaster 0]

You forgot the white invaders from Europe who stole their land.

[kcjen24 0]

They're land was stolen then force fed alcohol... jeez.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

News:

Tribe Suing Beer Companies For Alcohol Problems

An American Indian tribe is suing some of the world’s largest beer makers, claiming they knowingly contributed to alcohol-related problems on South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

The Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota filed a federal lawsuit Thursday demanding $500 million from five international beer manufacturers for the cost of health care, social services and child rehabilitation caused by chronic alcoholism on the reservation...

Full story: K2 Radio

Who is responsible for alcoholism?
1) The people who drink the beer.
2) The companies which make the beer.
3) The stores that sell the beer.

I voted: The people who drink the beer.

Sadly. Native American Reserves have a high rate of alcholism. The lack of jobs and not feeling accepted outside the reserve and the depression that goes with it, they turn to booze. They have a choice to drink or not to drink. They choose to drink. To me, this is not the fault of beer producers or the stores selling beer. The thing here is, people can sue anyone for any reason and the Native people have chosen to sue beer producers.
To me, folks who throw-out the old line about European settlers stealing Native lands doesn't hold water in this time. Anyone really feeling guilty about it are free to go to Europe and live there if, that salves their conscience. I was not there at the time and don't harbor any guilt feelings about it.
Native people need the same opportunities off the reserve that everyone else enjoys. They are still discriminated against and are last to be employed. Unless, it involves 'high steel'. Let them sue the beer producers and we'll just see how it goes.


Chuck

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

They are still discriminated against and are last to be employed.

Why is that? Just curious.

We are all engines of karma

[Andy9o8 3]

When I heard about this, I immediately recognized striking similarities to both the factual and the legal issues involved in consumer litigation against tobacco companies in the US and other countries.

Here are some sources about tobacco litigation. You can see that a lot of each side's arguments in those cases can probably be invoked in the NAs' lawsuit against beer companies.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2000/04/a_tobacco_lawsuit_primer.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_litigation#Litigation

http://www.justice.gov/civil/cases/tobacco2/index.htm

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

When I heard about this, I immediately recognized striking similarities to both the factual and the legal issues involved in consumer litigation against tobacco companies in the US and other countries.

Here are some sources about tobacco litigation. You can see that a lot of each side's arguments in those cases can probably be invoked in the NAs' lawsuit against beer companies.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2000/04/a_tobacco_lawsuit_primer.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_litigation#Litigation

http://www.justice.gov/civil/cases/tobacco2/index.htm

I agree. Will be interesting to see how this develops.

Won't be too long until sugar will be on this "list" as well.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

They are still discriminated against and are last to be employed.

Why is that? Just curious.

For about the same reasons that Blacks and other races, religions or cultures are discriminated against... ignorance.


Chuck

[masterrig 1]

Quote

When I heard about this, I immediately recognized striking similarities to both the factual and the legal issues involved in consumer litigation against tobacco companies in the US and other countries.

Here are some sources about tobacco litigation. You can see that a lot of each side's arguments in those cases can probably be invoked in the NAs' lawsuit against beer companies.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2000/04/a_tobacco_lawsuit_primer.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_litigation#Litigation

http://www.justice.gov/civil/cases/tobacco2/index.htm

In regard to the tobacco company lawsuits, wasn't it shown that the tobacco companies 'purposely' added chemicals to their cigarettes to get people addicted to their products? With beer, alchohol is always a part of the product and not 'purposely' introduced into the finished product with the intent of getting folks addicted to beer.
This could get real interesting!


Chuck

[billvon 3,132]

>In regard to the tobacco company lawsuits, wasn't it shown that the tobacco
>companies 'purposely' added chemicals to their cigarettes to get people addicted to
>their products?

I think the biggest factor in those lawsuits was the "manufacturing" of controversy surrounding the Surgeon General's report on lung cancer. They spent millions on ads, consultants, "scientific studies" etc proving tobacco was safe and that the government was lying about lung cancer.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

>In regard to the tobacco company lawsuits, wasn't it shown that the tobacco
>companies 'purposely' added chemicals to their cigarettes to get people addicted to
>their products?

I think the biggest factor in those lawsuits was the "manufacturing" of controversy surrounding the Surgeon General's report on lung cancer. They spent millions on ads, consultants, "scientific studies" etc proving tobacco was safe and that the government was lying about lung cancer.

Right. To me, it boils down to 'choice' We have the ability to choose if we want to smoke, drink or skydive and etc. We also have the choice of not doing any of these things. Granted, the tobacco companies would want their products in a 'good' light but the public really knew that smoking was bad. Some quit using tobacco, some chose tobacco. I certainly cannot go along with anyone trying to show their product in a good light but not lying about it. Beer producers have gone along with putting warnings on labels as did tobacco companies. The Beer producers 'know' their product and don't try to hid or cover-up the 'down-side' of their product. They don't say 'Beer is good and good for you' like tobacco companies did.


Chuck

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

>In regard to the tobacco company lawsuits, wasn't it shown that the tobacco
>companies 'purposely' added chemicals to their cigarettes to get people addicted to
>their products?

I think the biggest factor in those lawsuits was the "manufacturing" of controversy surrounding the Surgeon General's report on lung cancer. They spent millions on ads, consultants, "scientific studies" etc proving tobacco was safe and that the government was lying about lung cancer.

Right. To me, it boils down to 'choice' We have the ability to choose if we want to smoke, drink or skydive and etc. We also have the choice of not doing any of these things. Granted, the tobacco companies would want their products in a 'good' light but the public really knew that smoking was bad. Some quit using tobacco, some chose tobacco. I certainly cannot go along with anyone trying to show their product in a good light but not lying about it. Beer producers have gone along with putting warnings on labels as did tobacco companies. The Beer producers 'know' their product and don't try to hid or cover-up the 'down-side' of their product. They don't say 'Beer is good and good for you' like tobacco companies did. Chuck

A lot of it has to do with product marketing, as well as product distribution and availability. That is: to whom was the product marketing targeted, to whom was the product made available, and (re: both) how? Let's stick with just the beer example for now. Putting my lawyer's hat on, I'd think the plaintiffs' best strategy would be to show that the alcohol was marketed and advertised in such a way as to appeal to naive, impressionable young people under age 21, hopefully to get them seriously drinking prior to their attaining better judgment as adults. Also, even marketing to adults (especially younger adults) can be an issue if it's done in a way that not only glamorizes the product, but glosses-over the bad health effects. Mind you, we're dealing with a sub-demographic that tends to be poorly educated and unsophisticated, and would therefore be highly susceptible to this type of marketing.

(Yes, I understand the "personal responsibility" side of the argument; I'm just giving you a thumbnail on how the plaintiffs' side might be strategized.)

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>In regard to the tobacco company lawsuits, wasn't it shown that the tobacco
>companies 'purposely' added chemicals to their cigarettes to get people addicted to
>their products?

I think the biggest factor in those lawsuits was the "manufacturing" of controversy surrounding the Surgeon General's report on lung cancer. They spent millions on ads, consultants, "scientific studies" etc proving tobacco was safe and that the government was lying about lung cancer.

Right. To me, it boils down to 'choice' We have the ability to choose if we want to smoke, drink or skydive and etc. We also have the choice of not doing any of these things. Granted, the tobacco companies would want their products in a 'good' light but the public really knew that smoking was bad. Some quit using tobacco, some chose tobacco. I certainly cannot go along with anyone trying to show their product in a good light but not lying about it. Beer producers have gone along with putting warnings on labels as did tobacco companies. The Beer producers 'know' their product and don't try to hid or cover-up the 'down-side' of their product. They don't say 'Beer is good and good for you' like tobacco companies did. Chuck

A lot of it has to do with product marketing, as well as product distribution and availability. That is: to whom was the product marketing targeted, to whom was the product made available, and (re: both) how? Let's stick with just the beer example for now. Putting my lawyer's hat on, I'd think the plaintiffs' best strategy would be to show that the alcohol was marketed and advertised in such a way as to appeal to naive, impressionable young people under age 21, hopefully to get them seriously drinking prior to their attaining better judgment as adults. Also, even marketing to adults (especially younger adults) can be an issue if it's done in a way that not only glamorizes the product, but glosses-over the bad health effects. Mind you, we're dealing with a sub-demographic that tends to be poorly educated and unsophisticated, and would therefore be highly susceptible to this type of marketing.

(Yes, I understand the "personal responsibility" side of the argument; I'm just giving you a thumbnail on how the plaintiffs' side might be strategized.)

I see! You are right, marketing is everything. Brings to mind the various beer commercials. Bud and Bud light, really come to mind. They are out for certain demographics. Coors, back in the 80's had a big ad campaign geard to cowboys and wannabes and the younger folks. Malt liquors back then geared their advertising toward the young Black population.
In the case of Native People, how do they gear advertising toward hopelessness and depression?


Chuck

[popsjumper 2]

They should be suing Old Milwaukee and I'd have no problem with that.

It's a crime how that stuff tastes.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[masterrig 1]

Quote

They should be suing Old Milwaukee and I'd have no problem with that.

It's a crime how that stuff tastes.

Falstaff and Buckeye, too! Bleccch!


Chuck

[billeisele 130]

guess I need to find a lawyer so I can sue the Indians in NC for my gambling addiction

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[mutumbo 0]

its hard to become an alcoholic if you never start drinking. . . .

Thanatos340(on landing rounds)--
Landing procedure: Hand all the way up, Feet and Knees Together and PLF soon as you get bitch slapped by a planet.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

its hard to become an alcoholic if you never start drinking. . . .

Of course. Now try telling that to a 15 yr old kid.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

guess I need to find a lawyer so I can sue the Indians in NC for my gambling addiction

There is a liquor store near my house that has a big poster on the storefront about where to get help for gambling addiction (I guess because they sell lottery tickets), but nothing about addiction to their main product.

I don't know... do we put warning labels on everything or nothing? Seems very inconsistent right now. When I pick up any prescription medication, I get a multi-page insert that tells me how to use it, every possible side effect it might have, and what to do in the event of an overdose. And most food products I buy tell me the ingredients, the serving size, calories, and nutritional value (but no warnings about obesity, diabetes, etc.).

And if I buy a bottle of alcohol, I get very little information - just the %alcohol and a warning that it's not good to drink if pregnant and that it might impair my driving. No list of ingredients, no serving size/calorie information, no warnings about overdose or even how much would be considered an overdose. Hell, they don't even include a warning that consumption of their product will make me think I am more interesting and attractive than I actually am. Go figure....

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

its hard to become an alcoholic if you never start drinking. . . .

Of course. Now try telling that to a 15 yr old kid.

Not all 15 year old drink.

Believe it or not, some actually exhibit strength and maturity because their parents are involved with what's going on in their kids lives and steer them down the right path.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

its hard to become an alcoholic if you never start drinking. . . .

Of course. Now try telling that to a 15 yr old kid.

Not all 15 year old drink.

Believe it or not, some actually exhibit strength and maturity because their parents are involved with what's going on in their kids lives and steer them down the right path.

simplistic sound bytes may sound warm and fuzzy, but they do very little to advance this discussion. this discussion is not about parenting skills. Its about marketing alcohol to naive, impressionable young people on indian reservations plagued by grinding poverty, staggering rates of existing alcoholism, terrible education and ignorance. any discussion that fails to take that into consideration is simply bankrupt.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Parenting has everything to do with the path a child takes. Attempting to claim otherwise is short sited. Why do some kids not drink? Genetics?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

its hard to become an alcoholic if you never start drinking. . . .

Of course. Now try telling that to a 15 yr old kid.

Not all 15 year old drink.

Believe it or not, some actually exhibit strength and maturity because their parents are involved with what's going on in their kids lives and steer them down the right path.

simplistic sound bytes may sound warm and fuzzy, but they do very little to advance this discussion. this discussion is not about parenting skills. Its about marketing alcohol to naive, impressionable young people on indian reservations plagued by grinding poverty, staggering rates of existing alcoholism, terrible education and ignorance. any discussion that fails to take that into consideration is simply bankrupt.

from what you said here it looks like the adults are the issue not the beer companies.

[masterrig 1]

If, a kid wants to be involved in that type behavior, they'll find a way. Then, there's peer pressure and just 'experimenting'. It happens in the best of regulated families.


Chuck