San Fran to ban plastic grocery bags

farfromglorified

inmytree wrote:

it happens all the time...that's what laws are...

Oh, well, in that case, protest withdrawn!!! God forbid I question something that "happens all the time".

Laws are codes of conduct based on reason, not demands based on whims.

Look, this guy's reasoning could be used to create a very similar ban. Yet I wonder how Ross Mirkarimi would feel about banning condoms, based entirely on his very same arguments.

boxwine_in_hell

inmytree wrote:

this is great!!! I hate those fn plastic bags...

I wonder how the store employees will cope..when I request paper bags, they look at me blankly....usually they don't have them, but if they do find them, they have no clue how to pack them...I usually pack my own bags, but when they do try to help, forget it...

Damn Hippie!....lol

inmytree

farfromglorified wrote:

Oh, well, in that case, protest withdrawn!!! God forbid I question something that "happens all the time".

Laws are codes of conduct based on reason, not demands based on whims.

Look, this guy's reasoning could be used to create a very similar ban. Yet I wonder how Ross Mirkarimi would feel about banning condoms, based entirely on his very same arguments.

oh my god, relax....

so let me understand...your issue is not with the fact that when you visit San Fran, you won't be able to get a plastic bag with your purchase...your issue is that a local government elected by the people is looking to ban something....

I wonder, if a private corporation was doing the same (banning plastic bags), what side of the fence you'd be on....I bet I know....

farfromglorified

inmytree wrote:

oh my god, relax....

so let me understand...your issue is not with the fact that when you visit San Fran, you won't be able to get a plastic bag with your purchase...your issue is that a local government elected by the people is looking to ban something....

Looking to ban something already entirely in the control of those "people", yes. That's my issue.

I wonder, if a private corporation was doing the same (banning plastic bags), what side of the fence you'd be on....I bet I know....

If a private corporation banned it's own use of plastic bags, I'd be perfectly ok with that, just like if a private citizen banned his or her own use of plastic bags.

You're trying to find a contradiction by fixating on the bags. It has nothing to do with the bags. It has everything to do with forcing "the people" to do something in the name of "the people". It makes no sense.

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

Where will these people put their cat box scoupings? I'd have to buy them on the black market if I lived there.

they should go in the compost like they do here!

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...I'll take a ban in a city I don't live in over a federal ban, if that's what you're asking. A federal ban on paper bags would be unconstitutional, but certainly that wouldn't stop it from happening.



"Community values"? Huh? If using paper bags were a "community value", this wouldn't be a problem.

that was essentially what im asking. i prefer as many decisions as possible be made at a local level where they are more responsive and in touch with the desires of the locale.

using paper bags may not be a community value, but reducing pollution might be. if this measure is abhorrent to the community's sense of freedom, then they will let the legislators know. but im guessing most people dont give a flying fuck what kind of bag they get, so if this is good for the environment (which cannot vote to protect its own interests) and nobody minds, what's the issue?

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

that was essentially what im asking. i prefer as many decisions as possible be made at a local level where they are more responsive and in touch with the desires of the locale.

I'm cool with this.

using paper bags may not be a community value, but reducing pollution might be. if this measure is abhorrent to the community's sense of freedom, then they will let the legislators know. but im guessing most people dont give a flying fuck what kind of bag they get, so if this is good for the environment (which cannot vote to protect its own interests) and nobody minds, what's the issue?

They probably don't "give a fuck", in this case. Which makes me wonder how someone can claim this is in their interests.

I guess I'll just drop this, since I really don't care about plastic bags, don't live in San Fran, and am kind of in a crappy mood this morning. I would like someone to answer the condom question, however.

meme

This is fantastic!

I stayed in Germany for a couple of weeks two years ago and people using plastic bags would get dirty looks

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...why not just ban cars and burning smells then too?



I'm not really going to jump on the blame Wal-Mart bandwagon for giving people what they ask for.

You do know I was joking, right? I agree with your Wal-Mart remark, just found the 'bag' thing interesting.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

They probably don't "give a fuck", in this case. Which makes me wonder how someone can claim this is in their interests.

I guess I'll just drop this, since I really don't care about plastic bags, don't live in San Fran, and am kind of in a crappy mood this morning. I would like someone to answer the condom question, however.

it's not really in THEIR interests, but it is in the environment's interests. and since it is unfortunately true that the environment cannot vote to protect its own interests, sometimes we need to make some decisions to protect it out of the kindness of our heart. if we can find ways to do so that are relatively cheap, simple, and not inconvenient, i am all for that. better a plastic bag ban than a car ban.

as to condoms, yes, theoretically it could be done by the same logic. but, as usual, you are all in your head and not in reality. the same logic could be used, but wouldnt be, for a number of reasons:

1) condoms are not nearly as common or prevalent in their use. people are handed 3-4 of these bags every time they go to the store... i have hundreds in my closet that i use for trash bags.
2) condoms are smaller, so even if numerically, as many condoms were used as plastic bags, it would not be as big a problem.
3) for both of the above reasons, condoms would NOT be banned becos the intent of this law is environmental protection and a condom ban would not have any significant impact on the environment. whether or not the plastic bag thing does is debatable but it is assuredly (by simple math and physics) far more significant than a condom ban.
4) alternatives to condoms are nowhere near as cheap and convenient and practical as alternatives to plastic grocery bags. a paper bag is handed to the customer and carried in the same manner. other than condoms, you have to get the pill, the path, or some other vastly different contraceptive.
5) for the reason above, such a measure would spur a public outcry becos the costs vastly outweigh the benefits for a condom ban. this is not the case for a plastic bag ban, which has very moderate/minimal costs for a relatively significant benefit.

as you were so quick to point out in the human hybrid thread, just becos something can be done doesnt mean it should or will be done. in this case, yes, similar logic could be used to band condoms, but it will not be due to a basic cost-benefit analysis. surely as a businessman you understand the concept of cost-benefit analysis.

blackredyellow

baraka wrote:

Seems like I remember reading an article a while back about how Wal-Mart changed the 'look' of their plastic bags, so they would look like all the other plastic bags. Apparently, it was very easy to notice the millions of Wal-Mart plastic bags at the dump. I'll have to locate that article.

Well maybe if their cashiers didn't use one bag for every item, there wouldn't be that many bags I always have to tell them to put stuff together because I don't feel like carrying 12 bags of stuff when it will fit in 3.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

it's not really in THEIR interests, but it is in the environment's interests. and since it is unfortunately true that the environment cannot vote to protect its own interests, sometimes we need to make some decisions to protect it out of the kindness of our heart. if we can find ways to do so that are relatively cheap, simple, and not inconvenient, i am all for that. better a plastic bag ban than a car ban.

Why "better"? I see absolutely nothing to suggest a plastic bag ban would address the environmental concerns listed (oil and waste), whereas banning cars most certainly would.

as to condoms, yes, theoretically it could be done by the same logic. but, as usual, you are all in your head and not in reality. the same logic could be used, but wouldnt be, for a number of reasons:

1) condoms are not nearly as common or prevalent in their use. people are handed 3-4 of these bags every time they go to the store... i have hundreds in my closet that i use for trash bags.

Not nearly as common or prevalent? Well, I guess it depends on the standard. 10,000,000,000 condoms are discarded each year worldwide, roughly. Meanwhile, 500,000,000,000 plastic bags are used each year worldwide, roughly. So you have a factor of 50 times more plastic bags than condoms, but you also have plastic products that are more prevalent than both, yet you don't ban them. Like milk jugs, plastic bottles, etc.

2) condoms are smaller, so even if numerically, as many condoms were used as plastic bags, it would not be as big a problem.

Depends. Condoms are also thicker, and tougher. Furthermore, when we consider energy, it takes 4 times as much energy to create a paper bag than it does a plastic bag. Paper bags produce much more waste mass, but it decomposes faster.

3) for both of the above reasons, condoms would NOT be banned becos the intent of this law is environmental protection and a condom ban would not have any significant impact on the environment. whether or not the plastic bag thing does is debatable but it is assuredly (by simple math and physics) far more significant than a condom ban.

10,000,000,000 condoms has no "impact on the environment?" Again, this is bullshit. If I forced people to take birth control pills instead of using condoms, I'd significantly reduce environmental impact.

4) alternatives to condoms are nowhere near as cheap and convenient and practical as alternatives to plastic grocery bags. a paper bag is handed to the customer and carried in the same manner. other than condoms, you have to get the pill, the path, or some other vastly different contraceptive.

Of course they are. Lambskin condoms are a viable alternative.

5) for the reason above, such a measure would spur a public outcry becos the costs vastly outweigh the benefits for a condom ban. this is not the case for a plastic bag ban, which has very moderate/minimal costs for a relatively significant benefit.

I agree with this one.

as you were so quick to point out in the human hybrid thread, just becos something can be done doesnt mean it should or will be done. in this case, yes, similar logic could be used to band condoms, but it will not be due to a basic cost-benefit analysis. surely as a businessman you understand the concept of cost-benefit analysis.

Hehe...I do understand the concept of a "cost-benefit analysis". The entire purpose of governmental intervention here, however, is to pretend that the very same public is immune from such analyses. They've simply replaced the cost of their own choices with the enforcement of others. They've removed the decision, which in turn makes them believe they've removed the costs. It doesn't work.

chopitdown

this is a good thing esp since they are only banning plastic bags but not re-usable plastic bags. So really it just forces companies and consumers to used recycled goods.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Why "better"? I see absolutely nothing to suggest a plastic bag ban would address the environmental concerns listed (oil and waste), whereas banning cars most certainly would.

but as i said, the cost of banning cars would be huge. i dont know enough science to know the actual effects of a plastic bag ban and dont care enough to look into it.

farfromglorified wrote:

Not nearly as common or prevalent? Well, I guess it depends on the standard. 10,000,000,000 condoms are discarded each year worldwide, roughly. Meanwhile, 500,000,000,000 plastic bags are used each year worldwide, roughly. So you have a factor of 50 times more plastic bags than condoms, but you also have plastic products that are more prevalent than both, yet you don't ban them. Like milk jugs, plastic bottles, etc.

yes, but we're talking san fran. how many condoms vs. plastic bags are discarded in america? or in san fran? also, plastic bottles and jugs have strong recycling programs to somewhat offset the cost of using them. i believe plastic bags are recyclable too, but people dont do it. the world is less than perfect. but id still like it to be habitable in a few hundred years.

farfromglorified wrote:

Depends. Condoms are also thicker, and tougher. Furthermore, when we consider energy, it takes 4 times as much energy to create a paper bag than it does a plastic bag. Paper bags produce much more waste mass, but it decomposes faster.

i thnk the decomposition is the issue here. i get the impression this is about lanfdill issues. we consume way beyond a healthy rate of resources and we're running out of places to throw the garbage. again, an easy way to make a significant reduction in landfill use with minimal costs is kind of a no brainer.

farfromglorified wrote:

10,000,000,000 condoms has no "impact on the environment?" Again, this is bullshit. If I forced people to take birth control pills instead of using condoms, I'd significantly reduce environmental impact.

i didnt say it has no impact, i said it was not as significant as plastic bags. yes, you could force people to take birth control, but handing someone a paper instead of a plastic bag is a difference probably no one in san fran will notice and one that requires no effort really. forcing a switch to the pill is vastly different... doctor's visit for prescrip, fighting insurance to pay for it, totally different change in habits and practices for consumers, it has a much wider and troubling impact on the public than switching to paper from plastic.

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course they are. Lambskin condoms are a viable alternative.

but can they meet the demand with the minimal cost impact of paper vs. plastic? i know little about them except that as an idea it's really gross... i wouldnt stick my pecker in a lamb, i sure as hell dont want to wrap a lamb around it

farfromglorified wrote:

I agree with this one.

and this one is the most important one. the costs of this initiative are minimal. the benefits are tangible (though debatable). which is why condom bans would not fly and plastic bags will. you can't get something for nothing. as a capitalist you should know. if san fran decides they are willing to give up plastic bags for the environmental benefit, it's their call. if they decide they're not willing to give up condoms for the environmental benefit, there is nothing contradictory or illogical about that. again, your devotion to abstract logic makes no sense here. they are parallel, but in no way are they the same and there is nothing unreasonable about drawing a distinction between them.

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...I do understand the concept of a "cost-benefit analysis". The entire purpose of governmental intervention here, however, is to pretend that the very same public is immune from such analyses. They've simply replaced the cost of their own choices with the enforcement of others. They've removed the decision, which in turn makes them believe they've removed the costs. It doesn't work.

i dont understand what you're saying here. the public is immune to what? this is basic human psychology. people will sit by and watch someone be murdered and not lift a finger if the people around them don't. so the chance of one citizen trying to take some stand on plastic bags is absurd. their one decision makes no impact, and nobody will even be aware of it. for every bag citizen 1 doesn't take, citizen 2 takes an extra. so they do choose... they choose to place environmental concerns over a stupid and pointless "choice" that nobody is making anyway... nobody is going to cry over not having a plastic bag, they wont even notice. they've decided that their concern over limited landfill resources and the problems of disease associated with insufficient waste disposal resources vastly outweighs their concern over being able to go into a supermarket and say "i want plastic." that is a choice. and if it so so abhorrent to the community, the law will not be passed. and if you're in the minority that is really attached to plastic, you too have a choice: you can move out. there's another cost-benefit analysis: is your abstract devotion to ridiculous ideals of sufficient benefit to you that you will endure the cost of uprooting your life over the horror of being denied the benefit of a plastic bag at walgreen's? you cannot live in a vacuum and will always have to cope with human society, which means at some point, there will be impositions upon you. that's when you have to learn what battles are worth fighting.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

but as i said, the cost of banning cars would be huge. i dont know enough science to know the actual effects of a plastic bag ban and dont care enough to look into it.

Me neither

yes, but we're talking san fran. how many condoms vs. plastic bags are discarded in america? or in san fran? also, plastic bottles and jugs have strong recycling programs to somewhat offset the cost of using them. i believe plastic bags are recyclable too, but people dont do it. the world is less than perfect. but id still like it to be habitable in a few hundred years.

Ok, but isn't that statement "I'd still like it to be habitable in a few hundred years" a little ridiculous? Do you honestly believe that a plastic bag ban is relative to that in any appreciable way, particularly given the previous set of questions you ask?

i thnk the decomposition is the issue here. i get the impression this is about lanfdill issues. we consume way beyond a healthy rate of resources and we're running out of places to throw the garbage. again, an easy way to make a significant reduction in landfill use with minimal costs is kind of a no brainer.

It's obviously not a "no brainer". If it were that simple and basic, the law would be completely unnecessary because people wouldn't be using plastic bags.

This plays into the rest of your post, particularly regarding the "cost-benefit" issue, I'd ask you simply to look at the differentiation between the behavior of the people as it stands today and the edict of their representatives. Two contradictory behaviors cannot arise from a single cost-benefit analysis, yet that's what is happening here. We have a population consuming plastic bags and banning that consumption at the same time, supposedly. Just doesn't make sense to me.

cincybearcat

polaris wrote:

they should go in the compost like they do here!

So that explains that awful smell coming from the north...here I thought it was just Clevelanders.

surferdude

What am I supposed to use to gather my garbage in if not the plastic bags I get from grocery stores? I guess I'll have to start buying plastic garbage bas that are way over packaged. I guess they figure this is good for the environment. What f***in' morons.

I guess the idea of recycle is too advanced for San Francisco. Why recycle when you can outlaw.

Cosmo

I can't speak for anyone else... but, I when I'm doing the beach clean-up in the Spring and Summer, the things I pick up from the sand... cigarette butts, plastic straws and cup lids... and empty plastic bags from stores.
I rarely... if EVER... have picked up a store bought, pre-packaged, over packaged Hefty bag from the sand. I guess they don't usually find their way to our oceans via the storm drains and flood control systems.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok, but isn't that statement "I'd still like it to be habitable in a few hundred years" a little ridiculous? Do you honestly believe that a plastic bag ban is relative to that in any appreciable way, particularly given the previous set of questions you ask?

but, but a dozen such measures in a lot of major cities can add up. and more importantly, a society committed to environmental awareness can make a difference. we made space travel a priority in the 60s and were on the moon in less than a decade. you start with small steps like this and build up to awareness of what we're doing to the planet, and i have a feeling we could make a huge difference in terms of safer and smarter resource use. but you have to start by building populist support cos we are governed by majorities. so you pass small measures like this to get people going "oh, ok, environmental protection is easy" before building up to wider initiatives like alternative fuels. it's kind of an ad-hoc band-aid, but it is a step in the right direction.

farfromglorified wrote:

It's obviously not a "no brainer". If it were that simple and basic, the law would be completely unnecessary because people wouldn't be using plastic bags.

This plays into the rest of your post, particularly regarding the "cost-benefit" issue, I'd ask you simply to look at the differentiation between the behavior of the people as it stands today and the edict of their representatives. Two contradictory behaviors cannot arise from a single cost-benefit analysis, yet that's what is happening here. We have a population consuming plastic bags and banning that consumption at the same time, supposedly. Just doesn't make sense to me.

it makes perfect sense. cos like i said, most people dont give a second thought to what bag they're being handed. there's not a demand for plastic bags. they're writing checks and thinking about the next errand and trying to keep their kid from walking out with a candy bar. the use of plastic bags is undoubtedly a business decision for reasons unknown... perhaps the ease of storing large quantities of them. but they are consumed becos customers have their head elsewhere and simply arent thinking about where the bag comes from. so maybe no-brainer was the wrong word in some sense... people aren't aware of the cost. but when given notice of the benefits of switching to plastic they say "good idea, im in" becos they know the cost is minimal... maybe a few extra cents at the store to cover the cost of paper bags. they are not consuming plastic bags, they're just being handed them. they will consume whatever is given to them. they might support using paper over plastic, but not enough to drive all over town to find a grocery that uses them.

now if you have a majority of the citizens who support the measure, and it has a tangible public benefit, it makes no sense not to do it becos of a small minority interest (store owners wanting to save a few cents). the benefit of plastic to the store is negligible, otherwise they'd be outraged. the benefit to the citizens is nonexistent cos they dont care what kind of bag they get. but the cost to public waste disposal is large. on the flipside, the cost to the store is small and is passed on to the public anyway. the cost to the public is small and clearly acceptable to them. and the benefit to the city waste disposal is large. so it makes perfect sense to do this. so you have a law that has widespread support and no inconvenience. whereas not having the law has neutral support and convenience level, but places a heavy burden on public resources.

hippiemom

cincybearcat wrote:

So that explains that awful smell coming from the north...here I thought it was just Clevelanders.

:mad: