|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Mar 28, 2007 9:37:35 GMT -5
I can't believe anyone on God's green earth has time and energy to spend thinking about this, much less enacting such a ridiculous ban: tinyurl.com/357pdf |
|
|
|
Post by LawrenceCoBowhunter on Mar 28, 2007 9:40:15 GMT -5
So cut down more trees to make paper bags?..Makes sense to me lol..
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Mar 28, 2007 10:07:27 GMT -5
My buddies in the forestry industry will love this! More work for them!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by larryhagmansliver on Mar 28, 2007 10:25:30 GMT -5
uh... Wow!!! Ok let's ban all plastic or tax all plastic. I'll be the first to admit we throw too much plastic away on a daily basis. Just go look at your trash can, but bags? Aren't these things like a billionth of an inch thick?
|
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Mar 28, 2007 10:35:23 GMT -5
Actually all you need do is look at the Indiana roadside littered with these bags. They do not break down for many years and cause several different environmental problems. For once I agree with the San Francisicans on an issue.
Jack
|
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Mar 28, 2007 11:00:49 GMT -5
NO problem. Paper bags, 50 cents each or bring your own boxes. The plastic drink cups and bottles are worse than those thin plastic bags. At least they seem to decompose after some time. We are a throw away world now. Sadly. We had to stop burning trash for the environment but now we fill land fills with more and more stuff and cover it with dirt where it takes forever to break down and decompose. Seems like we need to get away from all of the plastic but what how could we go back to paper without cutting down trees. Paper out of corn stalks and soybean plants after picking? Old used clothing into pulp and then paper?
Banning plastic bags seems stupid yet understandable.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Mar 28, 2007 11:07:59 GMT -5
Jack will take a nice biodegradable paper bag when he goes to the Health Food store for his tofu and quiche. hehehehe.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 28, 2007 11:09:49 GMT -5
oh the problems of the world.
I see the reasoning behind it .... it is actually to bad it happened in Kalifornia. If it had happened in Nebraska or Iowa the rest of the Nation might be more apt to say "that is a good idea, we need to do more to protect our environment".
Instead people will be saying "what the hell did those wackos do this time".
|
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Mar 28, 2007 11:45:19 GMT -5
I too believe that plastic bags are a huge eyesore at the least and quite possibly an environmental problem also. the slightest breeze blows them away to who knows where. I spend hours every year picking them out of my hedgerows and every farmer plows hundreds underground every spring. They just don't go away. Depleting our forests to make paper bags? Hardly. Thats about as false a statement as saying real Xmas trees should be banned because it's a waste of good trees. Trees are planted specifically for these purposes. No Xmas trees, no paper bags, no lumber, means these trees will not be planted and will not provide cover, roosting, nesting, or food for wildlife species, nor will they emit oxygen or clean Co2 from the air because they simply won't exist. I think it's a good law.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Mar 28, 2007 13:01:40 GMT -5
I do not DISagree with the proposal, but my first reaction is to assume the company offering the NEW BAG is the real driving force here.
Kind of like how they used propoganda to get the legal use of hemp banned 50-60 years ago.
Kind of like how they have 10,000 'new' illnesses which require all the 'new' drugs. . .
|
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Mar 28, 2007 13:27:50 GMT -5
I can remember when the protests were the other way around years ago "to save our trees". Go figure!!!!!!!!!! "Save a tree eat a beaver". I guess we will have to start eating more beavers now?  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Mar 30, 2007 6:55:24 GMT -5
My two cents, for what it's worth--
It makes no sense to me to ban plastic bags for many of the same reasons I am adamantly opposed to placing excessive limitations on the use and ability to own a gun. The problem with littering is the behavior of the litterer, not the materials that are littered; therefore, a "plastic bag ban" will do nothing long-term to decrease littering, because the behavior of the litterer is not changed. Using my paralell with gun control, the problem with using a gun violently is the behavior of the person who chose to use the gun violently, not the gun itself. Much like you could launch a violent attack on another person using many other materials other than a gun (a hammer, a knife, etc.), you can litter using a variety of biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials, and both will be an eyesore, with the non-biodegradable materials never degrading on their own. Just as the argument that we should increase gun restrictions is ridiculous because violence can occur with a variety of materials, it is just as ridiculous to me that we should increase "plastic bag" restrictions (if you will) because littering can occur with a variety of materials. While driving on the Eisenhower last year, I saw a man throw a container of McDonald's fries out his window onto the highway--does this mean we should ban McDonald's fries as well? And yes, I know they are biodegradable (maybe hardly for all I know, with the amount of preservatives in them!), but they are an eyesore nonetheless just like non-biodegradable materials. Additionally, why should the government limit those individuals and businesses who choose to use plastic bags responsibly while not targeting those who choose to use these materials irresponsibly? To me, it seems similar to the question of why we limit those individuals who choose to use guns responsibly while not targeting those who choose to use guns irresponsibly instead. It is not the fault of the businesses who choose to use plastic bags responsibly that the litter problem is happening, so why penalize them? The government shouldn't have the opportunity to place a restriction on them when they aren't causing the problem. So, the bottom line is that I believe we should target the behavior of the litterers (maybe increase fines for littering or place more police officers in areas where litter is high--just suggestions!) rather than penalize those who are not responsible for the problem and who are using these materials responsibly. If we don't work to change the behavior of the litterers, they will find other things to litter with besides plastic bags, and the litter problem will continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 30, 2007 7:00:04 GMT -5
Well said drgreyhound.
We tend to put the blame on inanimate objects and pass laws against them.
I'm quite sure that San Fransisco already has an anti-litter law in place. Probably not all that enforced very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by LawrenceCoBowhunter on Mar 30, 2007 7:08:22 GMT -5
You can drive down 37 in Lawrence County and see community correction people (road crew) picking up bags of trash atleast twice a month,it's crazy to see how many trash bags they fill up.
|
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Mar 30, 2007 9:38:20 GMT -5
Thanks Woody!!  Yeah, I've seen them all picking up trash on that stretch of 37 before. It's a good use of their time, but it's really sad that time has to be spent picking up after people who choose to behave in irresponsible ways... |
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Mar 30, 2007 9:44:11 GMT -5
My two cents, for what it's worth-- It makes no sense to me to ban plastic bags for many of the same reasons I am adamantly opposed to placing excessive limitations on the use and ability to own a gun. The problem with littering is the behavior of the litterer, not the materials that are littered; therefore, a "plastic bag ban" will do nothing long-term to decrease littering, because the behavior of the litterer is not changed. Using my paralell with gun control, the problem with using a gun violently is the behavior of the person who chose to use the gun violently, not the gun itself. Much like you could launch a violent attack on another person using many other materials other than a gun (a hammer, a knife, etc.), you can litter using a variety of biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials, and both will be an eyesore, with the non-biodegradable materials never degrading on their own. Just as the argument that we should increase gun restrictions is ridiculous because violence can occur with a variety of materials, it is just as ridiculous to me that we should increase "plastic bag" restrictions (if you will) because littering can occur with a variety of materials. While driving on the Eisenhower last year, I saw a man throw a container of McDonald's fries out his window onto the highway--does this mean we should ban McDonald's fries as well? And yes, I know they are biodegradable (maybe hardly for all I know, with the amount of preservatives in them!), but they are an eyesore nonetheless just like non-biodegradable materials. Additionally, why should the government limit those individuals and businesses who choose to use plastic bags responsibly while not targeting those who choose to use these materials irresponsibly? To me, it seems similar to the question of why we limit those individuals who choose to use guns responsibly while not targeting those who choose to use guns irresponsibly instead. It is not the fault of the businesses who choose to use plastic bags responsibly that the litter problem is happening, so why penalize them? The government shouldn't have the opportunity to place a restriction on them when they aren't causing the problem. So, the bottom line is that I believe we should target the behavior of the litterers (maybe increase fines for littering or place more police officers in areas where litter is high--just suggestions!) rather than penalize those who are not responsible for the problem and who are using these materials responsibly. If we don't work to change the behavior of the litterers, they will find other things to litter with besides plastic bags, and the litter problem will continue. Damnit drgreyhound-I jumpen here too late-you said basically what I was going to say-although mine wasn`t as articulate as yours. ;D I`ll just say: see above.  |
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Mar 30, 2007 10:11:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Mar 30, 2007 11:55:57 GMT -5
Thanks, but now that I re-read it I realize that perhaps I haven't said it all...insert "and hard-earned tax dollars" following "time"...  |
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Mar 30, 2007 11:58:14 GMT -5
My two cents, for what it's worth-- It makes no sense to me to ban plastic bags for many of the same reasons I am adamantly opposed to placing excessive limitations on the use and ability to own a gun. The problem with littering is the behavior of the litterer, not the materials that are littered; therefore, a "plastic bag ban" will do nothing long-term to decrease littering, because the behavior of the litterer is not changed. Using my paralell with gun control, the problem with using a gun violently is the behavior of the person who chose to use the gun violently, not the gun itself. Much like you could launch a violent attack on another person using many other materials other than a gun (a hammer, a knife, etc.), you can litter using a variety of biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials, and both will be an eyesore, with the non-biodegradable materials never degrading on their own. Just as the argument that we should increase gun restrictions is ridiculous because violence can occur with a variety of materials, it is just as ridiculous to me that we should increase "plastic bag" restrictions (if you will) because littering can occur with a variety of materials. While driving on the Eisenhower last year, I saw a man throw a container of McDonald's fries out his window onto the highway--does this mean we should ban McDonald's fries as well? And yes, I know they are biodegradable (maybe hardly for all I know, with the amount of preservatives in them!), but they are an eyesore nonetheless just like non-biodegradable materials. Additionally, why should the government limit those individuals and businesses who choose to use plastic bags responsibly while not targeting those who choose to use these materials irresponsibly? To me, it seems similar to the question of why we limit those individuals who choose to use guns responsibly while not targeting those who choose to use guns irresponsibly instead. It is not the fault of the businesses who choose to use plastic bags responsibly that the litter problem is happening, so why penalize them? The government shouldn't have the opportunity to place a restriction on them when they aren't causing the problem. So, the bottom line is that I believe we should target the behavior of the litterers (maybe increase fines for littering or place more police officers in areas where litter is high--just suggestions!) rather than penalize those who are not responsible for the problem and who are using these materials responsibly. If we don't work to change the behavior of the litterers, they will find other things to litter with besides plastic bags, and the litter problem will continue. dangit drgreyhound-I jumpen here too late-you said basically what I was going to say-although mine wasn`t as articulate as yours. ;D I`ll just say: see above. Greg--where's the proof that yours wasn't as articulate if you didn't post it? Thanks though--I rolled out of bed, got on here, and posted...I'm usually not that articulate at those times!!  |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 30, 2007 12:41:52 GMT -5
How right you are .... no matter what we do people will continue to litter.
However, the environmental impact can be greatly reduced if biodegradable products are thrown out instead of plastic.
|
|
??
