Why would they even bother switching bag types?

If they're already selling illegal drugs, why would they bother making sure the bags they put them in are legal?

10/16/2008 1:07:28 AM

Quote :

"and I agree Twista, the law is stupid, but at least the intent makes sense."

just seems to me, like many other laws, the intent is good, but the net effect is a waste of time and money...did anyone read the comments in the original link? seems like nearly 100% of people in Chicago who commented thought it was dumb and would be ineffective

^exactly...they already take a lot bigger risks, like life in prison (in some cases)...why would they care about a fine?

10/16/2008 1:07:55 AM

maybe because its easier to regulate the sale of little plastic bags...but fuck, they'll just get them on eBay or amazon.

10/16/2008 1:35:07 AM

Quote :

"You know that's not a fair comparison. and I agree Twista, the law is stupid, but at least the intent makes sense."

ddf583

The path to hell is littered with good intentions. And if you follow the councilman's logic, we should just ban cars. Forget punishing individuals for traffic crimes they may commit--let's just punish everybody by taking away their cars.

10/16/2008 2:31:50 AM

Quote :

"And if you follow the councilman's logic, we should just ban cars."

Indeed.

After all, drug dealers use cars to move drugs around. Clearly, banning vehicular travel would effectively eliminate the drug trade!

10/16/2008 2:38:49 AM

I'm going to slowly back away from this whole Soap Box thing.

10/16/2008 2:39:56 AM

aha I clicked on this thinking they were banning plastic shopping bags. This is much more retarded

10/16/2008 4:38:26 AM

Wow. Governments can be awfully stupid.

10/16/2008 9:54:27 AM

Quote :

"why punish any legit businesses for some bullshit ploy against drugs that simply won't work? "

Good question.

10/16/2008 11:56:29 AM

Quote :

"aha I clicked on this thinking they were banning plastic shopping bags. This is much more retarded"

wolfpackgrrr

Have no fear, meddling bureaucrats across the country are busy with that nonsense, too.

S.F. FIRST CITY TO BAN PLASTIC SHOPPING BAGS

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/28/MNGDROT5QN1.DTL

Los Angeles bans plastic shopping bags by July, 2010, Seattle votes Monday on 20 cent fee

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/07/los_angeles_bans_plastic_shopp.html

Plastic bags may be banned in Boston

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/04/26/plastic_bags_may_be_banned_in_boston/

Maui bans plastic shopping bags

http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2008/08/18/daily62.html?ana=from_rss

But wait!

Dallas council refuses to tax or ban plastic shopping bags

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-plasticbags_14met.ART.State.Edition1.4ab2be4.html

Little plastic shopping bags saved by Texans! Yay!

10/16/2008 5:59:37 PM

The funny thing is that this will punish the people on the bottom more than it will the people at the top.

It's going to punish the addicts who simply need help, not the kingpins.


The government's got a taste of how much money they can get through processing and jailing these non-violent criminals for victimless crimes and they like it. Our prisons are filling up with victimless criminals.

The funny thing is that we know for a fact that putting drug addicts in jail rarely helps them stop using drugs. They get out of prison and keep right on using drugs. Plus, with their felony criminal record for victimless crimes, they're often unable to get legitimate jobs, which simply leads to them resorting to illegal actions to get money.

These laws have nothing to do with helping the addicts or the community, it's just about money and ridiculously idealistic logic.

[Edited on October 16, 2008 at 6:39 PM. Reason : ]

10/16/2008 6:36:34 PM

^^ Wasn't the whole point behind plastic bags to save the trees?

10/16/2008 7:15:53 PM

^ Exactly. Read this for even more:

10/16/2008 7:28:12 PM

hahaha so what are you trying to say hooksa

[Edited on October 16, 2008 at 8:24 PM. Reason : also if liberals "helped" did conservatives help with the rest of it?]

10/16/2008 8:24:20 PM

Quote :

"Have no fear, meddling bureaucrats across the country are busy with that nonsense, too. "

I would disagree that it is nonsense. When we have a floating island in the Pacific of plastic waste that is twice the size of Texas which is killing marine life I would certainly say we have a serious plastic polymer problem. I also don't advocate the extensive use of paper bags. So what is a consumer obsessed America to do? Well this is a solution my fellow advocates for personal responsibility should love. People should be highly encouraged and prompted to bring reusable canvas bags. When I was younger I used to look puzzled at the little old ladies who I would see in the grocery store with their tan satchels but as it turns out they had it right all along.

I agree that the main push for this should come from the businesses themselves but I don't frown upon a local government passing mandates to help curb plastic waste and pollution in their community if businesses or individuals are simply too lazy (or just ignorant) to be self-motivated.

[Edited on October 16, 2008 at 9:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2008 9:19:57 PM

^ Yes, but how did the notion of using plastic shopping bags come to be popularized in the first place, HockeyRoman? It was the environmental movement, of course, with their "Save the Trees!" mantra primarily in the 1970s--I was there.

And what about the advantages of plastic bags compared to paper bags?

* Plastic bags are durable, strong, low cost, and water and chemical resistant.

* They can be welded and have lesser energy and heavy chemicals requirements in manufacture.

* The light weight of plastic bags results in fewer atmosphere emissions compared to paper bags.

* Many studies comparing plastic versus paper for shopping bags show that plastic bags have less net environmental effect than paper bags, requiring less energy to produce, transport, and recycle.

* Plastic bags can be incinerated in appropriate facilities for waste-to-energy.

* Plastic bags are stable and benign in sanitary landfills.

* Plastic carrier bags can be reused as trash bags or bin bags.

* Plastic bags are complimentary in many locations (but are charged or taxed in others).

10/17/2008 1:08:06 AM

^Go stick your dick in your George W. blowup doll.

Quote :

"People should be highly encouraged and prompted to bring reusable canvas bags."

That's what I do.

10/17/2008 1:14:09 AM

^ Just wow. A civilized and meaningful exchange was occurring and you had to cock it up with that trinket. GG!

10/17/2008 1:20:00 AM

You are demonstrably unable to have a truly meaningful intellectual exchange.

Your entire purpose here is to wage a crusade against democrats.





[Edited on October 17, 2008 at 1:38 AM. Reason : too late for this...]

10/17/2008 1:23:03 AM

So sayeth carnak the clueless.



I don't suppose you would care to try and refute any of my points in the post above, would you? Yeah, it's easier just to talk shit, right? STFU.

10/17/2008 1:55:41 AM

Quote :

"Los Angeles bans plastic shopping bags by July, 2010, Seattle votes Monday on 20 cent fee"

Banning them is stupid but I don't really see anything wrong with the fee (as long as that fee is going towards something worthwhile and related).

Canvas bags ftw

10/17/2008 2:07:03 AM

^If the fee is a cost to the store for using plastic bags, that cost will just get passed on to the consumers through the cost of goods sold, regardless of what type of bag that consumer uses. That is what could could be wrong with it.

If they are saying that the customer might have to pay 20 cents extra when they choose between "paper or plastic" at the checkout... well, I think it's a dick move, but there's nothing specifically wrong with it from an objective moral standpoint.

[Edited on October 17, 2008 at 2:24 AM. Reason : v I agree with that statement. I was just pointing out what could potentially be wrong with a fee.]

10/17/2008 2:13:34 AM

^ Yes, but my main point was about good intentions--and the path to hell (little h) being littered with them. The "Save the Trees" campaign of the 1970s put forth by the environmentalists brought us plastic shopping bags over paper bags in the first place--and they have now changed their tune without much if any news of it from the MSM (surprise!), and I just don't want this important point to be lost in the debate.

10/17/2008 2:20:41 AM

Quote :

"It was the environmental movement, of course, with their "Save the Trees!" mantra primarily in the 1970s--I was there. "

You will get no argument from me in that regard. I know full well how the practice began. If you will note I have a problem with using both paper and plastic in favor of reusable cloth bags. I doubt that in the 70s people could have foreseen the environmental blight caused by the juggernaut of modern day irresponsible plastic usage.

[Edited on October 17, 2008 at 2:22 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2008 2:20:58 AM

Quote :

"I don't suppose you would care to try and refute any of my points in the post above, would you? "

Like I said, your entire purpose here, in this thread and on this message board, is to wage a crusade against democrats. All of your points are part of this crusade so there is no point in disputing them, because you're not here to exchange knowledge.

[Edited on October 17, 2008 at 2:27 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2008 2:26:26 AM

^ Um. . .shut. . .the fuck. . .up. I'm attempting to educate you.

^^ I appreciate you acknowledging my point--I just wanted to get it on the record. I further wished to illustrate that the environmentalists were wrong, which I can forgive them for if they would admit it, in the 1970s. Furthermore, it's possible that they could be wrong about plastic bags now for some of the reasons that I listed:

Quote :

"* They can be welded and have lesser energy and heavy chemicals requirements in manufacture. * The light weight of plastic bags results in fewer atmosphere emissions compared to paper bags. * Many studies comparing plastic versus paper for shopping bags show that plastic bags have less net environmental effect than paper bags, requiring less energy to produce, transport, and recycle. * Plastic bags can be incinerated in appropriate facilities for waste-to-energy. * Plastic bags are stable and benign in sanitary landfills. * Plastic carrier bags can be reused as trash bags or bin bags."

And, yes, I see that you're against both. But wouldn't the problem be largely solved if bag manufacturers simply switched to materials that biodegrade very rapidly? I mean, I just don't think that carrying your own bags trend is going to catch on--other that the Trader Joe's crowd and a few others.

[Edited on October 17, 2008 at 2:34 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2008 2:28:56 AM

Quote :

"^If the fee is a cost to the store for using plastic bags, that cost will just get passed on to the consumers through the cost of goods sold, regardless of what type of bag that consumer uses. That is what could could be wrong with it. If they are saying that the customer might have to pay 20 cents extra when they choose between "paper or plastic" at the checkout... well, I think it's a dick move, but there's nothing specifically wrong with it from an objective moral standpoint."

My understanding of those fees is that they are charged to the consumer, not the store.

^^ you'd be surprised. They want on a full out campaign for "my bag" as they call them in Japan, and managed to sucker a bunch of assholes by making "designer" ecobags. You can buy them everywhere and they stock them in the impulse section of the supermarket (where they keep gum and magazines and the like) and usually give something like a 10-20 cent discount for using your own bag. As a result they've become pretty mainstream.

If they make the bags "cool" like they've been doing in other countries I think you'll see a lot of people using them.

[Edited on October 17, 2008 at 2:34 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2008 2:30:38 AM

For the folks who can't read:

Quote :

"Prior to the final vote, Ald. Walter Burnett (27th) expressed concern about arresting innocent people. He noted that extra buttons that come with suits, shirts and blouses -- and jewelry that’s been repaired -- come in similar plastic bags. Burnett was reassured by language that states “one reasonably should know that such items will be or are being used” to package, transfer, deliver or store a controlled substance. Violators would be punished by a $1,500 fine."

I know the language could get stretched by the cops but still, they're not proposing raids on clothing stores, folks...

Quote :

"SaabTurbo: The funny thing is that this will punish the people on the bottom more than it will the people at the top. It's going to punish the addicts who simply need help, not the kingpins. The government's got a taste of how much money they can get through processing and jailing these non-violent criminals for victimless crimes and they like it. Our prisons are filling up with victimless criminals. The funny thing is that we know for a fact that putting drug addicts in jail rarely helps them stop using drugs. They get out of prison and keep right on using drugs. Plus, with their felony criminal record for victimless crimes, they're often unable to get legitimate jobs, which simply leads to them resorting to illegal actions to get money. These laws have nothing to do with helping the addicts or the community, it's just about money and ridiculously idealistic logic."

I agree with you that drug laws advertently or inadvertently end up harming addicts more than dealers.

However, I'm not sure that's what will happen here.

I mean, stores sell these teeny, tiny bags with cute little patterns on them, and everybody knows that they serve no purpose except for the sale of illegal drugs. Rolling papers are a similar item, but there's always the possibility they might be used by tobacco smokers. There's no question about these plastic baggies though. I mean, nobody looks at the five-hundred count package of tiny bags oddly placed in a crappy convenience store in a crappy part of town, and says, "Wow, the people round these parts must really be selling a lot of home-made beads and buttons!"

So while communities and addicts suffer, "legitimate" businesses get to make money on the drug trade by providing the baggies that transport the goods. I'm not sure this is a problem for me, but it's pretty fucked up when people play dumb about what role they're playing in the destruction of their communities. We all know that they know they're selling a product that will be used solely for the sale of illegal drugs.

Where it's possible why not fine them and invest that money into drug rehabilitation?

10/17/2008 2:32:32 AM

^^ Um. . .I believe he's saying that those business costs are passed on to consumers--just like corporate taxes.

[Edited on October 17, 2008 at 2:33 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2008 2:33:18 AM

He way saying that it could be one or the other. I was saying that my understanding of the law, from what people have told me who live in Seattle, is the 20 cent fee is not charged to businesses that then pass that on to the consumer. It is something that is directly targeting the consumer to begin with.

10/17/2008 2:36:40 AM

This will be the last time I contribute to digression from the original post because I feel it is very rude for me to continue to do so. That said, you may feel they were "wrong" in the 70s as is your privilege to do so. I, however, see it as an inability to fathom the potential for future generations to be so irresponsible and wasteful as to not properly develop ways to handle the plastics produced. I would welcome responsible companies who made biodegradable, non-petroleum based bags but where is the economic incentive to do something environmentally beneficial when you could just dump existing bags in the ocean?

For the sake of the original argument I think the ban is pretty silly. I am sure industrious dealers and buyers will simply wrap their product in cellophane and use wire ties or rubber bands.

10/17/2008 2:49:04 AM

^^ I don't think you're really thinking this through. How is the fee charged if it's not passed along in the grocery or store bill? I mean, does the government mail the consumer an invoice for 20 cents a bag?

^ Agreed on your latter point concerning the OP.

[Edited on October 17, 2008 at 2:53 AM. Reason : .]

10/17/2008 2:51:32 AM

^ Yes, the supermarket charges adds it to your bill, but I'm not really seeing your point. The other choice would be the government charging a fee for units of plastic bags sold, which would be a fee charged to the stores, not the consumers.

10/17/2008 2:53:59 AM

^ OMFG! If governments charge businesses a fee, it will almost invariably be immediately or eventually passed along to consumers. What part of this don't you get?

You are the one that posted this:

Quote :

"I was saying that my understanding of the law, from what people have told me who live in Seattle, is the 20 cent fee is not charged to businesses that then pass that on to the consumer. It is something that is directly targeting the consumer to begin with."

What?! Have you been drinking too many of these?

10/17/2008 3:40:02 AM

This really isn't difficult to understand. Do you not get charged sales tax at a store? Same concept but instead of a percentage it's a flat rate.

10/17/2008 5:49:56 AM

^ I get it--I got it all along. Do you get this?

1. If a fee is charged to the consumer by the government, then the consumer will pay it as a part of his or her total purchase price.

2. If a fee is charged by the government to business, then the consumer will almost invariably pay it immediately or eventually as a part of his or her total purchase price.

10/17/2008 6:10:59 AM

Yeah, I do. I'm not sure I understand where the disagreement is since I never said I didn't agree with the above.

10/17/2008 6:57:18 AM

Perhaps I simply misunderstood you.

10/17/2008 7:27:53 AM