The plastic bag industry has already launched its drive to put a referendum on the November 2016 ballot that would repeal SB 270. They have contracted with the American Progressive Bag Alliance to gather the required 504,760 signatures for the referendum and to qualify for the ballot by the deadline on December 29.
The plastic bag ban will take effect statewide in California on July 1, 2015, one year after a similar ordinance took effect in the city of Davis.
Spotted yesterday at Walmart was a signature collector who said he was funded by “the guys who make plastic bags. It’s 2000 jobs lost.” When pressed on the point, he stated, “Hey, it’s a job.”
At the end of September, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 270 into law, prohibiting grocery stores and pharmacies from distributing single-use plastic bags after July 1 of 2015, and thus aligning state law with ordinances passed by a growing number of local governments in California to reduce plastic waste.
The ink was not even dry on the signature when plastic and paper bag manufacturers, who mounted a vigorous late campaign in an attempt to overcome strong support from environmentalists and grocers who supported the proposal, threatened to put the measure to a vote of the people.
“It’s yet another job-killing, big grocer cash grab masquerading as an environmental bill,” Mark Daniels, chairman of the American Progressive Bag Alliance said.
The group claims “that bans at the local and state level hurt the economy, kill jobs, tax the poor and don’t actually help the environment.”
A poll released at the end of October by a bipartisan group of pollsters commissioned by the LA Times, however, shows that the ban has “broad support among voters, presenting a challenge for industry groups that hope to overturn the law.”
Sixty percent of the voters who responded to the survey support the ban. More interesting is that the support is broader than current policies. 52 percent of respondents live in a community that has already banned disposable plastic bags and 60 percent support the ban, with just 35 percent in opposition.
The Times poll found that even 52 percent of the people who do not live under local restrictions support the ban.
“Even the people who haven’t been exposed to it don’t think it’s egregious,” said Drew Lieberman of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Inc, the Democratic half of the polling team.
The LA Times talked to David Kanevsky of American Viewpoint, which was the Republican half of the polling team, and he argued that ideological arguments were “unlikely to carry the day in a referendum battle.”
“If this becomes an ideological thing, that’s not enough to persuade voters in a Democratic-leaning state where voters aren’t necessarily opposed to more government if they agree with … what it’s trying to do,” he said.
Where opposition might make some headway is on the issue of the ten-cent charge. But by the time the measure comes up for a vote, it will have been in place statewide for a year at least, and in 40 percent of the state in local communities for a lot longer than that.
Thus far, over 120 local governments in California have passed ordinances banning single-use bags in some fashion.
“This bill is a step in the right direction – it reduces the torrent of plastic polluting our beaches, parks and even the vast ocean itself,” said Governor Brown in signing the legislation. “We’re the first to ban these bags, and we won’t be the last.”
“A throw-away society is not sustainable. This new law will greatly reduce the flow of billions of single-use plastic bags that litter our communities and harm our environment each year. Moving from single-use plastic bags to reusable bags is common sense. Governor Brown’s signature reflects our commitment to protect the environment and reduce government costs,” Senator Alex Padilla, who sponsored the legislation, added.
A majority among all races and income levels would vote to uphold the ban, according to the pollsters.
But the industry is gearing up for a costly referendum. The Times reports that South Carolina’s Hilex Poly, the large plastic bag manufaturer, has already donated over half a million dollars to the effort.
The Times notes that Mr. Daniels is claiming, “We’re getting inundated with calls from Californians thanking us for doing this… It’s very encouraging for our industry.”
However, Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste, which headed the statewide bag ban effort, told the Times that “he very much doubted that bag makers are being swamped with calls of support from state residents.”
The Times adds, “Murray said the industry’s claims of broad support mirror its insistence that plastic bags are environmentally safe. ‘They don’t have a real argument, so they’re using bogus arguments,’ he said.”
“For nearly 10 million Californians, life without plastic grocery bags is already a reality,” said Mr. Murray. “Bag bans reduce plastic pollution and waste, lower bag costs at grocery stores, and now we’re seeing job growth in California at facilities that produce better alternatives.”
The American Progressive Bag Alliance contends that the new law threatens nearly 2,000 well-paying California jobs in the plastic bag manufacturing and recycling industry and also “represents a government-sponsored, billion-dollar transfer of wealth from working families to grocers in the form of fees on paper and thicker plastic bags; no money collected from bag fees will be used for environmental programs or for any public purpose.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“A throw-away society is not sustainable.”
This is the core statement that I think most of us would agree with. There are many nuances and many permutations about how to best address the issues of waste, designed obsolescence, our obsession with “convenience” and the ease with which we shrug off our personal responsibility as “good stewards” of our environment.
I also have a lot of empathy for those who maintain that a ban or government intervention is not the optimal way to approach the problem. I understand this on a very basic level as I do not want the government involved in any way with a woman’s reproductive rights. So I truly understand. However, I think that there is a much more basic issue here. Just because we do not want government intervention, does not mean that we should trivialize the issue.
When reading this article and contemplating the amount of money that will be spent to fight this legislatively, I could not help but wonder how much better off we might be if that same amount of money were to be spent in re tooling or converting the plants now used to produce the plastic bags to other uses and to employ those people whose jobs will be lost in other manufacturing roles. I see this in much the same way as I see the argument that we should not hamper the tobacco growers or distributors because it penalizes those who earn their living on tobacco farms and in tobacco sales and promotion. Let’s not forget that a complete cessation of smoking would within a single generation cut the number of cancer fatalities in our country by at least 1/3. To me it is no argument at all to say, but what about those poor doctors, nurses, and medical assistants and technicians who will lose their jobs on the cancer wards. And yet this is the argument that is being made with regard to tobacco, large gas utilization vehicles, and to a much lesser degree, to plastic bags.
If we all were to agree to sensible steps to curb pollution and litter in our environments voluntarily, there would be absolutely no need for any government interference. We however, are so contentious as a society and so unwilling to change our own personal habits, that we repetitively shoot ourselves in the proverbial foot and invite coercive rather than collaborative efforts when others opinion differs from our own.
David wrote:
> A throw-away society is not sustainable.
Than Tia wrote:
> This is the core statement that I think most of us would agree with.
I recently had a friend in the hospital and the amount if items the hospital “threw away” each WEEK will take up more room in the landfill than every plastic bag I have used in my LIFETIME.
Maybe Tia should work get the hospital to start sterilizing, washing and re-using things and stop the “throw-away society” before preaching to others.
P.S. I’m wondering it Tia uses “throw-away” bandages at home (or used the “greener” washable cloth bandages with re-usable leather straps like they used in WWI…
South of Davis
You are correct that there is a tremendous amount of waste in the medical field. What you, through no fault of your own are not aware of, is that there is a huge effort within Kaiser to look at our processes and minimize waste where we can. You further would have no way of knowing that I nominated, on the basis of her interest in “green processes” and elimination of waste, the doctor who is currently spear heading this effort in our region for Kaiser. What I would suggest is that you ask what efforts are being made by myself personally and within our profession before deciding to attack.
> What I would suggest is that you ask what efforts are being
> made by myself personally and within our profession before
> deciding to attack.
It was not an “attack”, I’m just wondering if:
1. You think Governor Brown should be the one to decide what you and the hospital can re-use?
2. You use disposable band aids (and other wound dressing) at home?
There is the distinction. Kaiser gets to decide. And I’m sure all those Kaiser employees are following Tia’s prescription to collaborate and cooperate instead of competing for each of their own self-interest.
But here in environmental wacko world we are told what we can and cannot do even lacking evidence that the rules derive any benefits.
I am beginning to see that lefties where the bossy kids in school… just getting a rise out of telling others what to do.
Tia, Thank you for posting this bit of optimistic news re: Kaiser’s efforts to look @ their processes and minimize waste. I applaud their efforts.
Frankly, I applaud free thinking bossy kids over kids who quietly sit in class and not make trouble. The outspoken kids might just be the kids who stand up to bullies, and other forms of injustice. If kids are too afraid to question any authority figure, they are probably too afraid to stand up to a bully. Less trouble to just look the other way…
This reminds me of the an effort by the Davis Recycling Center, where I worked for a time in the early ’70s, to recycle materials from the old Davis Community Hospital. DRC worked out an arrangement with the hospital whereby we would make a weekly pickup of their bagged “recyclables” and take them back to the Center (located in what is now Aggie Village) to sort and recycle.
The program had mixed results; we did save a bunch of stuff from the landfill, but we also had to deal with used tubing, needles, and medication containers that hospital staff — some of whom were a little unclear on the concept — bagged up with the normal recyclables. It wasn’t exactly an OSHA-approved situation, and, if memory serves, the program died a welcome death after a few months.
David wrote:
> Where opposition might make some headway
> is on the issue of the ten-cent charge.
Most people in California are “Pro-Choice” and want the “Bag Tax” to go away (I suspect this will get even more votes than the vote to get rid of the “Car Tax” got)…
the car tax was onerous, the bag fee is 10 cents a bag. “pro-choice” is a misnomer anyway. conflating the specifics of the abortion issue with other issues do not necessarily work. i suspect most people will realize that this is not a big deal once the ban is implemented and live with it.
SOD, I was wondering if you are pro-choice, given that the topic is part of your argument? FYI, I am, with or without quotes or capitalization. Neither do I pay a “Bag Tax” nor do I buy a new bag shopping but rather carry one or more of our reusable bags.
Don wrote:
> SOD, I was wondering if you are pro-choice
I am pro-choice on EVERYTHING (unlike most “progressives” who are “only” pro-choice on abortion, but feel that people can’t be trusted to choose what school their kids goes to, if they want to join a union, what kind of light bulbs to use in their home or what kind of bags to give their customers)…
Re: unions, I was fascinated to work with a man who demanded his flex time hours of 7:00 – 4:00. sneaking out of the office at 3:45 to meet his buddies for a few rounds of golf. But he refused to pay union dues and continuously griped about fair share union dues. His wife needed extra time to recover after a difficult childbirth, and thanks to our strong union she did not lose her job. (She also worked flex time, to save daycare expenses.) He argued for his seniority every time the holiday vacation schedule was discussed. He used all the benefits his union got for him, and was counting the days until he could retire at 55, but continually griped about free choice and not wanting any payroll deductions for his fair share dues. I’m sure this man would have also fought against a plastic bag ban if one ever happened in his town. Yet he wants a clean ocean for his future grandkids’ swimming and surfing.
I’m all for putting the bag ban to a vote. Let’s see what the people say. I’m willing to abide by majority rule.
Tia… you appear to believe in the absolute ‘sanctity’ of female reproductive rights, at least freedom from governmental/societal rules. Yet, the way those “rights” are exercised result in ‘throw-away’ “products of conception”, approximately half of which are female, who, given the chance to be born, might choose to have children. “throw-away society is not sustainable”?
I can’t see bringing birth control/abortion into a comparison of plastic bags.
/
I often wonder if women who believe in absolute “reproductive rights” would have fully supported their mothers’ choice to terminate a normal pregnancy, had that been their mother’s choice when she was pregnant with them.
Walk a mile in a raped woman’s shoes. Walk a mile in a poverty-level woman’s shoes. Walk a mile in a drug addict’s shoes. Walk a mile in a molested child’s shoes, then tell them about your religious views.
Don’t you think demands of empathy should be universal? Or do you only think it applies to certain hard luck cases?
If there were sufficient interest, I could put together an article on the Kaiser “green efforts”. I believe that the program has been going on for a number of years although I think that the current lead has only been in her position for about 3 years. How about it, any interest ?
A pregnancy due to rape/incest, etc. is not within my definition of a “normal pregnancy”. Please re-read my post, stop making inferences, and grow up.
When I wrote “Pro-Choice” today I was thinking about “school” choice since just 10 minutes before I got an e-mail from a DER list I’m on where a (super liberal Democrat) wrote that he never thought he would be quoting Condi Rice as he posted a recent quote she had about the lack of school choice hurting poor black kids.
Most super liberal Democrats never use plastic bags because their “religion” prohibits it just like most super orthodox conservative Catholics don’t use condoms because their “religion” prohibits it.
Telling a conservative he can’t get a plastic bag at the store is just a big F-U from the left in the same way that a condom ban would be a big F-U to the left (and the gay community) from Catholic conservatives (I wonder why we never hear the people on the left complaining about all the condoms filling our landfills or washing out to sea when they are left on the beach by UCSB and UCSC students?)…
Frankly
“I am beginning to see that lefties where the bossy kids in school… just getting a rise out of telling others what to do.”
Actually I was extremely isolated in school being bullied about being poor and having “shall we say rather distinctive looks”. I certainly was not telling anyone what to do. But I did receive a lot of grief from those whose very conservative parents could buy them all the cool stuff.
I also am not “telling anyone what to do now” either. I am simply pointing out that if everyone did their part, there would be no need for regulation at all.
Ok, so you are being bossy now… trying to make up for lost time?
Sorry you were bullied, but not that you were poor. I was bullied a couple of time in my life and had to “reform” the bully. My family was, at times, poor too. And every kid has distinctive looks.
Being poor can make you stronger. Look at you now!
The plastic bag ban infuriates me. I wish I could Vulcan Mind Meld with you so you could get a sense of how profoundly disgusted and disappointed I am that my fellow residents feel perfectly fine imposing their lifestyle choices on me this way. The bad taste will not go away soon, and will probably never go away.
There was/is no environmental justification for the ban. Everything put out there was a myth. Yet you and others still went forward with it. You dug in your bossy heels and said “let’s get this done… let’s tell all those plastic bag using people that we are the boss and can make them follow our rules!” To hell with the fact that paper still litters and is more harmful to the environment. To hell with the fact that plastic bags and wrappers still exist and litter. To hell with the fact that “multiple-use” plastic bags will come down in price to the point to be routinely discarded at greater cost to the environment. To hell with the point that single-use bags are rarely only used once. To hell with the point that no Davis bags make it to the sea. To hell with the increased cost having to pay for bags.
You won this bag ban at great cost of my reduced cooperation in the future. I am pissed and resentful and will be perpetually on the lookout for opportunities to get you back (“you” being all those that pushed for banning bags.)
And you will think “Frankly is off his rocker since it is only plastic bags.” But it is not just plastic bags. It was a power play. It was the bossy people getting their way despite the proof that it does not fix anything and causes people the harm of reduced utility and greater inconvenience. Every time I walk into the damn store having forgotten to bring reusable bags and have to pay for paper bags. Every time I buy something and have the merchant expect me to carry the products in my hands or pockets, and then have to pull out my credit card again to pay for a bag. Every time I have to make more trips from my car to the house because I cannot carry but one paper grocery bag because of the greater risk it will rip open or the handle will tear off. Every time I get ready to travel and cannot find any old “single-use” plastic bags to put my shoes in or to take for a dirty clothes bag. Every time something leaks into my car or my home or on my clothes from a paper bag. Every time I go to walk the dog and find that I am out of purchased poo bags and don’t have any “single-use” bags. Every time I or my wife has to remove all the reusable shopping bags from the car for passengers and then ends up at a store without them… my anger and disgust will continue to simmer until I can participate in something that irritates you as much.
I hope it was all worth it for you.
Frankly
My goodness. What a tirade of emotion from someone who is objective to a fault and who feels that the emotionalism of others is a major problem with our society. Never mind that I had no strong feelings one way or the other about the bag ban, and only saw the bag ban in Davis as a way to control a small part of the problem of litter in the community, definitely a nuisance but hardly an earth shaking local environmental problem. How objective of you to lay this all on my personal doorstep when my only strongly worded commentary on this was my direct observation ( and therefore factual) of the 7 bags I observed caught on the fencing and bushes while walking from 2nd and J to Northstar.
Fully resolved emotion. I understand what is causing it and what the response needs to be. But yes, a lot of emotion. I tend to respond strongly to profound displays of irritating idiocy that impact everyone else.
Frankly, in a few paragraphs you’ve nicely encapsulated everyone’s feelings that are against this stupid bag ban. Yes, every point you made I either felt or have been through. I had to laugh because the having to remove bags from the back seat of my truck in order for passengers to sit and then forgetting to put them back just happened to me yesterday. I forget my bags all the time, then when I get to the checkout counter I decide that saving 40 cents isn’t worth running out to the parking lot. This dumb law has collectively taken a lot of money out of the public’s pocket. But hey, liberals get to feel good about themselves.
“I forget my bags all the time”
So the argument that I am hearing from you is, “because I am forgetful, we should not attempt to address the issue of litter in our community.”
I fail to see the logic ( as Frankly frequently puts it) in this line of reasoning.
Tia… in the 60’s, early 70’s, litter was a huge problem. Today it tends to be an “outlier”… I think it was public education/advertising that kept my generation and our kids from being “litter bugs”.
I’ve gone from a 5 cent credit for using our reusable bags, to a 10 cent fine if I forget. Stick, rather than carrot.
For those who have zero tolerance for anything/anything that conflicts with their world view, I get it.
Here’s an article about liberals imposing their values, like plastic bag bans, on others because they think they know what’s good for you.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/grubers-obamacare-comments-expose-whats-wrong-with-liberalism/article/2556091?custom_click=rss
“At the end of the day, liberals not only believe that they’re smarter than the public, but that they have a better sense of what’s good for the people than Americans themselves.”
Don’t conservatives believe that the public are a bunch of brain-washed masses and that they alone know the truth. I don’t think either side is really unique in this regard.
David wrote:
> Don’t conservatives believe that the public are a bunch of brain-washed
> masses and that they alone know the truth. I don’t think either side is
> really unique in this regard.
Wouldn’t the world be a better place if people just told their kids what to do and conservatives let guys that wanted to marry other guys get married and a liberals let a produce store owner that wants to give away free plastic bags give them away?
The world would also be a better place if more people read views from the “other side” (BP should check out the Washington “Post”every now and then).
Personally I don’t think dictating people’s political positions is a good approach but even worse the kind of partisan snipping attributing purity to their own motives and evil to the other side. I see no good purpose that comes from this.
hpierce
“Yet, the way those “rights” are exercised result in ‘throw-away’ “products of conception”, approximately half of which are female, who, given the chance to be born, might choose to have children. “throw-away society is not sustainable”?”
I also do not agree with “throwing away” human life. That is why I have never performed an abortion. However, I am self aware enough to know that my beliefs are just that, my own. I am a strong believer that this is based on my own personal morality, and for many others it is based on their religious beliefs. I am keenly aware that I should not be imposing my moral standards, or religious beliefs on anyone else, which is what I perceive this controversy to be about. I believe that the single best way to prevent abortion is to prevent undesired pregnancy. That is why I believe that as a society we should offer free of charge to any woman who wants it, effective long term reversible sterilization. That would cut the risk of an unintended pregnancy to < 1% per year.
except for…?
“except for what”
Give me an example and I will give you my reply.
Well the obvious plastic bag is the first example.
“the plastic bag ban”
As stated, I did not feel strongly one way or the other. It is you who decided that I must have been solely responsible and therefore pleased with the out come of my ( non existent) efforts.
Care to try for another example ?
Tia wrote:
> As stated, I did not feel strongly one way or the other.
So will you post that we can use your name publicly in campaign materials as opposing the bag ban (or was Frankly dead on and does not need another example)…
It’s a long way from indifference to endorsement.
“It’s a long way from indifference to endorsement.”
Is it? Indifference is why we had the Holocaust. Don’t want to cause a firestorm, but your statement made me wince.
Tia expresses indifference about the bag ban. South of Davis wants to know if she will, thus, endorse the repeal of the bag ban. You bring up the Holocaust.
Yeah, that makes me “wince a bit,” to put it mildly.
I don’t care about the bag ban one way or another, really. I haven’t found it difficult to adjust to it. I don’t understand why anybody would get viscerally angry about it, as Frankly has done. I wouldn’t endorse the repeal.
You say you are “indifferent”, but then say you would not vote to repeal the bag ban. I would say that is not exactly what I would call “indifference”, but stating a preference to keep the bag ban in place.
I can perfectly understand Frankly’s anger at the plastic bag ban, because it almost exactly mirrors my own, and I am pretty middle of the road politically. But I prefer being given a choice. Having to remember to bring reusable bags, making sure to wash them, keeping them stored in the back seat of my car is very inconvenient. And in light of the amount of plastic used in the country, plastic bags are a drop in the bucket in comparison. IMO the plastic bag ban was a solution in search of a problem. And my greater fear is the enviro Nazis (forgive my extreme term here) are going to go in search of the next thing to ban me from using, because they have a need for exerting power over everyone else’s lifestyle (remember Al Gore’s insistence people not drive gas hogging SUV’s, as he drove around in his gas guzzling jets?). And I see wasting time on bag bans that don’t really address the major issue of plastics being non-biodegradable as very counterproductive, because there are very real environmental issues out there that need addressing, such as the dangers of fracking contaminating our ground water.
I said I wouldn’t endorse the repeal; i.e., I wouldn’t put my name out there as someone who supports the repeal. I might not vote to repeal it. I don’t really know how I would vote, nor do I care that much about this issue.
Don wrote:
> I don’t really know how I would vote,
> nor do I care that much about this issue.
It is funny how so many people that “don’t really know how they would vote” sure seem happy with the bag ban and how many that “don’t care much about the issue” sure spend a lot of time posting about it.
I don’t care if they serve corn or peas to the school lunch kids at MME next week and if someone wants to put my name down as supporting corn I’m fine with that…
So you oppose peas?
Anon
I have a number of thoughts about your post.
1. With regard to plastic bags being a “drop in the bucket” environmentally, I agree overall but disagree on two points. I think it is important to work incrementally starting with what we can change. I remember you actively objecting to graffiti at one point stating accurately that is property damage. You wanted something done to lessen it. And yet I would posit that the amount of graffiti that we have here in Davis is a “drop in the bucket” compared with what is in our large cities. Does that mean that we should not address the issue. I suspect that this trivialization of a problem only counts when it is an issue that you do not care about. As I have noted previously, people whose primary mode of transportation is by bike or car do not tend to notice the amount of bags in our community because they do not tend to see them where they get snagged at the base of bushes and on fences. Since in my off hours, I primarily walk, I frequently see them and do see them as a major source of local litter because of their aerodynamic properties. Are there other sources of litter ? Of course, and we should be addressing those too. The most effective means would be for each individual to not litter, but that doesn’t always happen even though it is better now.
2. And my greater fear is the enviro Nazis (forgive my extreme term here) are going to go in search of the next thing to ban me from using, because they have a need for exerting power over everyone else’s lifestyle.
I think that you have really summarized a greater point here with the phrase “and my greater fear”. Well that is just what it is, a fear…..and nothing more. I think it is a much sounder policy to judge each issue on its own relative merits. It is completely rationale to evaluate the issue and come to the conclusion that the cons of a bag ban out weigh the pros and therefore oppose it. I do not find it either rationale nor sound decision making to oppose a proposal because you “fear” what may be proposed next. In my field this would be the equivalent of saying “I won’t have my infected toenail removed because I fear that my doctor may suggest to amputate my toe next.” In the medical case, refusing a small remedy because you fear what may come next is actually likely to make that fear much more likely as in the case of choosing not to treat a minor ailment due to the fear of treatment only to have it become a much more serious problem requiring more draconian steps.
3. Since the question of whether my name could be used as endorsing a no vote on the bag ban was addressed at least in part to me, I will try to respond. There are many issues on which I have a slight preference one way or the other, but would be open to very sound arguments from the other side, or more importantly to better alternatives. Because of my favored mode of transportation ( my feet), I see a lot of stray bags and do not feel that lowering their numbers locally is a trivial issue. So what I would suggest to the folks who are anti ban, stop trying to tell me that something that I see as an issue isn’t one and suggest what else you think that might work to lessen what I see as a problem whether or not you perceive it to be one. I do not like bans and would prefer to have a collaborative approach to my perceived problem. Unfortunately, the ban is what has been proposed, and barring an viable alternative, I would vote for it rather than against it. This certainly does not make me a strong advocate or extremist either way.
3.I do find it quite objectionable to have folks throwing around the term “enviro Nazis” even if they then choose to say please excuse the term. If you had to try to excuse it, you obviously knew that it would be egregiously inflammatory. I really do not excuse this kind of hyperbole and feel it should be called out for what it is. A question to you from the other side. Do you not find the thought of calling our armed service personnel “baby killers” objectionable and hateful even if it may have been a literally accurate description? Well, this is how I feel about the term “Nazi” applied very loosely to any kind of advocacy that one does not personally agree with.
Tia wrote:
> Never mind that I had no strong feelings one way or the other about the bag ban
Then two days later (after writing a 500+ word essay in support of the bag ban) wrote:
> I would vote for it rather than against it. This certainly does not make
> me a strong advocate or extremist either way.
Tia is probably the only person in America that has written THOUSANDS of words in support of something that she ” no strong feelings one way or the other”…
P.S. I think Tia will feel better if she admits that her support of the bag ban has more to do with punishing the less enlightened who have not been using cloth bags for years than protecting the environment (I tell the same thing to my conservative friends who pretend that they are just trying to “protect marriage” when they really want to “punish” people they don’t like…
South of Davis
“I think Tia will feel better if she admits that her support of the bag ban has more to do with punishing the less enlightened who have not been using cloth bags for years than protecting the environment (I tell the same thing to my conservative friends who pretend that they are just trying to “protect marriage” when they really want to “punish” people they don’t like…”
And I think that your posts would be much more effective if you did not waste your words telling me and others what is in my head when I post. When I care deeply enough about something, I have submitted an article on it. You can tell what I think by what I write. I do not understand your need to make up what I “must be thinking “and post it as though you know me better than I know myself. If you have a point make it. Telling me what I think is a futile and ridiculous exercise.
Tia wrote:
> You can tell what I think by what I write.
That was my point, you say you “don’t care” but then spend hours “writing” thousands of words defending something that you “say” you don’t care about (and even find time to write even more about a choice that the other side wants to ‘ban”)…
P.S. The politicians and the politically connected that keep getting rich are hoping that everyone stays on this topic talking about plastic bag bans and does not read anything about our budget issues and pension shortfalls…
Sorry… comparing the bag regs to the holocaust is like comparing the bag regs to a woman’s “right” to abortion. Not even slightly valid. Now if you wanted to compare a laissez-faire attitude for abortions for convenience (as opposed to rape, incest, maternal danger, etc.) to the Holocaust, then you may have a believable comparison. After all, the powers involved in the Holocaust believed that Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, Catholics, etc., were sub-human and disposable.
Today, would Davis require that the ‘delivery’ of “products of conception” be done by reusable bags or charged for the use of paper ones?
The point I was trying to make is “indifference” is not necessarily “indifference” because the person who stated it says they are “indifferent”. And “indifference” can have wider consequences. It is not always a long way from “indifference” to endorsement.
hpierce
“comparing the bag regs to the holocaust is like comparing the bag regs to a woman’s “right” to abortion. Not even slightly valid.
This is correct. And I take full responsibility for injecting a subject that is not even vaguely comparable into the discussion. My point was not to make a comparison between bag bans and abortion. I had intended my comment only to apply to the concept of understanding the dislike for regulation. I should have realized that some would take umbrage at the idea that I was making a comparison of the two issues which was never my intent. I apologize on two counts. First it is never my intent to inflame the discussion but rather to present my ideas on a subject as just that, my ideas. Secondly, I realize that many of my ideas can be seen as “extreme” within the context of our current culture and it is my responsibility, in the interests of being heard clearly and furthering the conversation to not do the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a brush fire and not expecting it to escalate.
Frankly, Anon and Barack: Don’t worry, just because the vast majority agree that getting rid of stupid plastic bags in favor of reusable bags or charging you for paper bags to help you remember your reusable bags is a good idea doesn’t mean it can’t be reversed with a few million dollars from the plastic bag makers. You of all people should have faith in the “market place” of ideas where the biggest and best advertising budget dictates our desires and, increasingly, our policies.
Dave Hart, you don’t worry either. If the plastic bag ban gets overturned by the voters you will still have the choice of using your reusable bags. The majority of voters won’t force you to use a plastic bag.
Nice response! It should be about choice!
Anon
“It should be about choice!”
Perhaps we would be in agreement that whether or not to become involved in a foreign war is a decision with much more impact than whether or not to use a plastic bag. By your rationale about “choice” would you agree that each individual should have the “choice” of whether or not to contribute ( without negative repercussions) to a war effort to which they are morally opposed by choosing not to pay their taxes. If you agree, then we might have a basis for agreement. If you do not agree, then I would have to conclude that you are only in agreement with the concept of “choice” when it is an issue that you feel inconveniences you personally.
Many people were “inconvenienced” by losing their lives or the lives of their husbands, fathers, brothers, children in wars in which the rationale for going to war was a lie. So how far do you extend this concept of choice ? Does it apply only to the inconvenience that you dislike, or does it apply to those issues that have the ability to destroy lives ( abortion, wars in “defense of American interests”) ? Does it apply only to your inconvenience, or will you take the inconvenience of a child with asthma into account when deciding whether or not you are against a smog reducing measure in an area subject to “spare the air” days ?
Tia wrote:
> Perhaps we would be in agreement that whether or not to become involved
> in a foreign war is a decision with much more impact than whether or not to
> use a plastic bag.
And no one is making you or me “get involved in a foreign war” (but I can’t get a plastic bag at Nugget and I now need to buy plastic bags to pick up dog poop)…
> By your rationale about “choice” would you agree that each individual should
> have the “choice” of whether or not to contribute
I know for a fact that the Pentagon is not waiting for Tia’s check on April 15th to pay for our “foreign wars” (that I am probably against even more than Tia) so none of her money is paying for cruise missiles. We have to pay taxes, but we don’t have to “contribute” to the war effort.