California lawmaker wants to prohibit restaurants from providing plastic straws unless requested

[dank69]

If instituting a pigovian tax on the purchase of straws makes business unaffordable, then the restaurant can choose not to purchase straws. It's the solution you want anyway. If restaurants still want to have straws, they can pay the tax to (either directly or indirectly) to clean up the pollution caused by said straws. Let the market decide if the cost of cleaning up pollution is worth using straws.



I can immediately think of one; not using a straw.

Not using a straw at fast food places really isn't an option, is it?

Let the boss ask them to do that instead of having the government throw some relatively poor person in jail cause they couldn't remember one of thousands of stupid regulations. I worked in grocery stores in high school and we were told to ask the customers "Is plastic ok today?" cause plastic bags were slightly cheaper. Seemed to have the desired effect. If grocery stores employing 100s of distracted teenagers can manage to change behavior to reduce costs then surely restaurants can do the same without the government throwing people in jail, no?

So rely on hopes and prayers to reduce waste? ok

 

[dank69]

I have no serious problem with this, but I assume the amount of plastic contained in all the unasked for straws in restaurants is absurdly small. There's probably 500 straws worth of plastic in a single plastic trash bag. Not worth the time it takes to draft the legislation. Not worth the cost of regulating it.

I wonder how many straws per day are thrown on tables in every single sit-down restaurant in all of California.

 

[woolfe9998]

I wonder how many straws per day are thrown on tables in every single sit-down restaurant in all of California.

I'm sure it's quite a lot. Still doesn't make the total amount of plastic involved terribly significant. The laws which requires you pay for bags make more sense.

The straws can be recycled anyway.

 

[BigDH01]

Not using a straw at fast food places really isn't an option, is it?

Yes, yes it is. You ever drink anything in your life not out of a straw? Bottles, cans, glasses, etc. Some are more car-friendly than others, but let's not pretend that there aren't options. This is going to blow your mind, but I've even gone into fast food joints and not used a lid or a straw, I know, how novel.

So rely on hopes and prayers to reduce waste? ok

Your brain must have disengaged. I described a pigovian tax that would be far more effective at dealing with negative externalities than using the government to throw 3rd parties in jail for not remembering one of your stupid ideas.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't think it would be an unconstitutional law, and sure I'd say the world would be better off with this policy, but come on. This could be accomplished through social movement and would carry the advantage of people understanding why they weren't being given a straw. Probably, some angry people would even tip less and reduce patronage if they didn't know.

I don't see this as any different with how municipalities have banned plastic bags and now you have to pay for them at many grocery stores, and even Targets now. This wasn't accomplished by social movement, but by a simple law. Some people bitched, thought it would ruin their lives, but nothing really came of that. People adjusted and it seems that most actually agree that this is better than the state of things before. waiting for a social movement would just see people bitching about it endlessly and nothing getting accomplished.

putting the law down and letting the angry minority rage for a day or two until they realize that they actually didn't care all along seems like the superior approach to these kind of minor behavioral adjustments.

 

[dank69]

Yes, yes it is. You ever drink anything in your life not out of a straw? Bottles, cans, glasses, etc. Some are more car-friendly than others, but let's not pretend that there aren't options. This is going to blow your mind, but I've even gone into fast food joints and not used a lid or a straw, I know, how novel.



Your brain must have disengaged. I described a pigovian tax that would be far more effective at dealing with negative externalities than using the government to throw 3rd parties in jail for not remembering one of your stupid ideas.

Is not remembering to not do something even a thing? Remembering to do things I can see as a problem but what is your concern here? Poor servers with a pent up straw throwing arm reflexively launching straws without being able to control it? Maybe we can send them to "not giving out straws" training schools.

 

[zinfamous]

Yes, yes it is. You ever drink anything in your life not out of a straw? Bottles, cans, glasses, etc. Some are more car-friendly than others, but let's not pretend that there aren't options. This is going to blow your mind, but I've even gone into fast food joints and not used a lid or a straw, I know, how novel.



Your brain must have disengaged. I described a pigovian tax that would be far more effective at dealing with negative externalities than using the government to throw 3rd parties in jail for not remembering one of your stupid ideas.

I haven't used a straw in many, many years but there are actual necessary uses for them: often dentists recommend them for sensitive teeth, or even some will use them out of sheer vanity (as simple as reducing stained teeth.)

Also easier for young kids.

I think you are raging more at the penalty, which does seem excessive, but the law seems properly placed and far less expensive for government and consumers compared to your proposal. Also, you want to target the vice specifically, not overall costs for all items at a business, if your goal is to alter one specific behavior. If you agree that straws and stupid and we'd be better off with less straws, and that people should use them less, then why do you propose a measure that raises costs across the board, and not specifically on straws?

 

[dank69]

I'm sure it's quite a lot. Still doesn't make the total amount of plastic involved terribly significant. The laws which requires you pay for bags make more sense.

The straws can be recycled anyway.

I agree the bag laws likely reduce plastic waste much more drastically but I bet the amount of straw waste generated by California alone is pretty significant.

 

[IronWing]

I think each used straw should be cut open lengthwise because seabirds.

 

[BigDH01]

Is not remembering to not do something even a thing? Remembering to do things I can see as a problem but what is your concern here?

Going to ignore the first question because it's obvious that people perform habitual behaviors without thinking about it all the time. I would say my primary concern here is that a bunch of "liberal" people are trying to solve a negative externality problem by using the government to jail waiters, people who are probably least responsible for them.

Poor servers with a pent up straw throwing arm reflexively launching straws without being able to control it? Maybe we can send them to "not giving out straws" training schools.

I'm sure that's the next thing you'd want the government to do.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Why make it a law instead of just changing the health code?

 

[IronWing]

Why make it a law instead of just changing the health code?

The health code should stick to matters pertinent to health. I think if the policy is to be implemented it really should be through law making. That provides folks an opportunity to praise or ridicule the idea as they deem appropriate.

 

[BigDH01]

I haven't used a straw in many, many years but there are actual necessary uses for them: often dentists recommend them for sensitive teeth, or even some will use them out of sheer vanity (as simple as reducing stained teeth.)

Also easier for young kids.

People who need straws are free to take them to fast food establishments or restaurants unless the owner explicitly bans them and I can't imagine they'd do that.

I think you are raging more at the penalty, which does seem excessive, but the law seems properly placed and far less expensive for government and consumers compared to your proposal.

I don't know what upsets me more, that people are willing to use the government to impose excessive penalties on those who are probably not making much more than minimum wage for delivering a straw to a table, or that liberals actually prefer this solution to the problem because it saves consumers and producers from paying actual costs and instead externalizing their enforcement onto a bunch of people they always claim to help.

Also, you want to target the vice specifically, not overall costs for all items at a business,

I don't know why a pigovian tax on straws increases costs for all restaurant items. If including the true cost of the straw when selling the straw makes straws unaffordable then individuals and businesses don't have to purchase them.

If you agree that straws and stupid and we'd be better off with less straws,

I'm not convinced of this, I'm taking this a priori just to demonstrate that the supposed solution to the problem is just governmental stupidity.

then why do you propose a measure that raises costs across the board, and not specifically on straws?

Who proposed that?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The health code should stick to matters pertinent to health. I think if the policy is to be implemented it really should be through law making. That provides folks an opportunity to praise or ridicule the idea as they deem appropriate.

Half of the health code has little or nothing to do with "health" plus, there are already inspectors in place. Who's going to enforce straw laws?

 

[IronWing]

Half of the health code has little or nothing to do with "health" plus, there are already inspectors in place. Who's going to enforce straw laws?

If the health code is weighed down with garbage, I'd like to see it cleaned up so inspectors can focus on health issues. Enforcement would likely have to follow the path used for smoking bans where customers have to complain to whichever entity the legislature chooses and the entity would have to decide whether or not to investigate. I imagine that 1) it would take more than one complaint to trigger an investigation and 2) it would be a very low priority for the enforcement agency. A restaurant would probably have to advertise, "WE GIVE STRAWS TO EVERYBODY" to draw an enforcement action.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

If the health code is weighed down with garbage, I'd like to see it cleaned up so inspectors can focus on health issues. Enforcement would likely have to follow the path used for smoking bans where customers have to complain to whichever entity the legislature chooses and the entity would have to decide whether or not to investigate. I imagine that 1) it would take more than one complaint to trigger an investigation and 2) it would be a very low priority for the enforcement agency. A restaurant would probably have to advertise, "WE GIVE STRAWS TO EVERYBODY" to draw an enforcement action.

I'd like to see the health code cleaned up as well but, again, why create yet another law that can't be enforced?

 

[zinfamous]

People who need straws are free to take them to fast food establishments or restaurants unless the owner explicitly bans them and I can't imagine they'd do that.



I don't know what upsets me more, that people are willing to use the government to impose excessive penalties on those who are probably not making much more than minimum wage for delivering a straw to a table, or that liberals actually prefer this solution to the problem because it saves consumers and producers from paying actual costs and instead externalizing their enforcement onto a bunch of people they always claim to help.



I don't know why a pigovian tax on straws increases costs for all restaurant items. If including the true cost of the straw when selling the straw makes straws unaffordable then individuals and businesses don't have to purchase them.



I'm not convinced of this, I'm taking this a priori just to demonstrate that the supposed solution to the problem is just governmental stupidity.



Who proposed that?

restaurants will always carry straws, just as grocery stores will always carry bags. cost of straws is general cost of overhead for a restaurant, so an increase in that price from the distributer means it increases the general overhead. That leads to a price adjustment on the menu when a free items is now more expensive to purchase.

putting the cost on the item, for the restaurant, incentivizes reduced use in the specific item. Again, they aren't going to be getting rid of straws because there is a perceived acceptable need for them.

I still think what you saw about the proposed penalty has enraged you emotionally, and you aren't thinking beyond that. what faults do you currently see in the way that bag laws have been implemented for grocery stores? Has this lead to the evil strong arm of the government enacting unnecessary burdens on the innocent public?

 

[manly]

I'm sure it's quite a lot. Still doesn't make the total amount of plastic involved terribly significant. The laws which requires you pay for bags make more sense.

The straws can be recycled anyway.

I don't have a link handy, but it's actually a not insignificant amount of plastic. But worse off, straws are single use, rarely if ever recycled and some of which end up in the ocean.

Can you even name a single area that recycles plastic straws? I'm not saying they can't be recycled, but I'm not aware of any city that actually collects them. Perhaps they can be mixed in with standard plastic waste (like water bottles) but I'm not aware of it. I've actually studied the recycling rules for San Jose, CA fairly closely and despite being in the ultra liberal Bay Area, there are a lot of items that should not go into the curbside bins.

 

[BigDH01]

restaurants will always carry straws, just as grocery stores will always carry bags. cost of straws is general cost of overhead for a restaurant, so an increase in that price from the distributer means it increases the general overhead. That leads to a price adjustment on the menu when a free items is now more expensive to purchase.

I don't get it, presumably you're in favor of this law precisely because you believe that restaurants don't need to carry straws or should have fewer of them. I suggest a more equitable alternative to reduce straw usage and now restaurants will *always* carry straws. If you truly believe that, you should be in favor of neither proposal.

putting the cost on the item, for the restaurant, incentivizes reduced use in the specific item. Again, they aren't going to be getting rid of straws because there is a perceived acceptable need for them.

I believe that the costs of negative externalities should be paid by the parties creating the externalities in the first place. Apparently, you are fine outsourcing the enforcement of your pollution control measures as long as you feel it doesn't affect the prices you pay at restaurants and the cost is only borne by those least able to afford it. How righteously liberal of you.

I still think what you saw about the proposed penalty has enraged you emotionally, and you aren't thinking beyond that.

I understand you don't like having holes poked in your anti-liberal persona, but accusing someone of just not thinking is not an argument.

what faults do you currently see in the way that bag laws have been implemented for grocery stores?

You're asking a mostly libertarian person what they see wrong with a government ban, it's delving into tautology.

Has this lead to the evil strong arm of the government enacting unnecessary burdens on the innocent public?

Um, yes? That you are fine with it doesn't necessarily make it the "right thing to do".

 

[Starbuck1975]

Outrage not found. Plastics waste is a very bad thing

 

[ElFenix]

i'm guessing no one would ever get prosecuted under this law. it's not meant to be enforced but to get people to think twice before just throwing a bunch of straws on a table, many of which end up in the garbage, not being recycled (and i'm pretty certain you should not be tossing plastics not marked with recycling labels in the recycling stream anyway).


edit: straws don't really recycle:

As you mentioned, plastic straws are not recyclable. Plastic straws are made from polypropylene, which is a byproduct of petroleum, a fossil fuel that requires an incredible amount of energy and natural resources to extract and refine. Polypropylene is identifiable by the resin identification code 5 and is commonly recyclable, just often not in drinking straw format. Size is the biggest barrier to straw recycling. As plastic travels down conveyor belts while being sorted, small items like bottle caps and straws fall through the cracks and end up being sent to the landfill. As of right now there aren’t many (if any) special straw-recycling facilities either, which means when you use a straw, you know that plastic will sit in a landfill for years to come.

https://livegreen.recyclebank.com/because-you-asked-what-s-so-bad-about-plastic-straws


edit2: there's also the fact that only children should be using them. similar to ketchup.

Mark Hall, a spokesman for recycling firm BusinessWaste, said: ‘A plastic straw has a lifespan of around 20 minutes, and then it’s thrown away.
‘Where recycling facilities exist, most pubs and bars don’t bother separating out used straws to recycle because it’s fiddly, and - frankly - they’ve been in the mouth of a stranger.
‘They are pretty much the ultimate in human wastefulness, and a problem that can so easily be solved with very little effort.’
Mr Hall added: ‘Face the facts, you’re not eight years old. Only kids need a straw with their fizzy pop. Why on earth do you need a straw in your G&T?

damn right.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't get it, presumably you're in favor of this law precisely because you believe that restaurants don't need to carry straws or should have fewer of them. I suggest a more equitable alternative to reduce straw usage and now restaurants will *always* carry straws. If you truly believe that, you should be in favor of neither proposal.



I believe that the costs of negative externalities should be paid by the parties creating the externalities in the first place. Apparently, you are fine outsourcing the enforcement of your pollution control measures as long as you feel it doesn't affect the prices you pay at restaurants and the cost is only borne by those least able to afford it. How righteously liberal of you.



I understand you don't like having holes poked in your anti-liberal persona, but accusing someone of just not thinking is not an argument.



You're asking a mostly libertarian person what they see wrong with a government ban, it's delving into tautology.



Um, yes? That you are fine with it doesn't necessarily make it the "right thing to do".

I'm not sure where you came up with this argument that you attributed to me. Here, let me go again:

1) I don't personally use straws. I have no use for them. I recognize (as earlier, and clearly stated) that other people do and they are seen to have a certain value.
2) The issue is about unnecessary plastic waste, not the mere existence of straws. I don't know why you attribute that confusion to me
3) restaurants will always carry straws, just as grocery stores carry bags, even when legislation is in place and society largely accepts the shared waste inherent in the need for these items.

The penalty imposed on the restaurant either happens or it doesn't. There is no cost in not violating the law. You understand? Placing the cost on the producers of the straw raises the price for providing free straws, and thus the total prices on the restaurant menu. All of that cost: napkins, cups, straws, salt, ketchup, etc is part of overhead. This essentially costs the restaurant nothing because they don't violate the law, the restuarant orders less straws because they have less need, and thus the problem works it way back to the manufacturer, as you so desire, with the same effect on them, in the end, but at less cost to everyone as well as a direct, economic effect on the consumer, in that behavior has been conditioned into being less of a wasteful pig human.

everyone is happy. Like you, I'm not interested in sending anyone to jail for this. obviously that is nuts.

You haven't explained anything about your thoughts on bag bans, if they have been successful or not. You just defended your libertarianism as an absolute position that is impervious to challenge or the prospect of being updated in light of better data, "for reasons." You are defending your noble crusade of pure, soulless math as a black hole of facts and data. Only the position matters, never the results. This is terrible science. Actually, it isn't even science.

Do you think the bag bans have effectively reduced pollution in these places, that people who live in these towns are becoming less wasteful? Does the cost of these programs represents an unreasonable burden on the noble consumer? If you do, that's fine--I just haven't seen you defend this position with anything other than platitudes about noble libertarianism.

You're like poor Polonius hiding behind that arras.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sure it's quite a lot. Still doesn't make the total amount of plastic involved terribly significant. The laws which requires you pay for bags make more sense.

The straws can be recycled anyway.

According to the National Parks Service Americans throw away 500 million straws a DAY.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/plastic-straws-ocean-trash-environment/

While there are certainly other, larger issues to be concerned with this seems like a near zero cost initiative that has a meaningful impact. It’s a freebie so why not take it?

 

[Stokely]

Punishment seems a bit harsh for straws, but I do agree it's a good idea. Every little bit helps.

Plastic garbage is a big problem and may be bigger than we really know. Fisherman are finding it in fish stomachs, you have to wonder what the end result of all this stuff will have on the ecosystem.

NPR had a story about recycling and how much of what we "recycle" was ending up in China...who was pretty good about reporting what happened with it. Now China is starting to turn away the junk, and it's going to other countries (mostly in southeast asia) and it's unclear what is really happening with it. There was also mention that much of the plastic is "low quality" and it doesn't really make sense to recycle it--and that each time you recycle plastic it isn't as good.

Sounds like the best approach is to avoid using it where we can. I have been on a jihad with my family over water bottles...my wife is addicted to the things and it rubs off on the kids. I've been buying a 5-gal reusable bottle from Lowes (purified, not spring) but getting her to use it...grrr. Grocery bags is one I need to stop using.

 

[woolfe9998]

According to the National Parks Service Americans throw away 500 million straws a DAY.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/plastic-straws-ocean-trash-environment/

While there are certainly other, larger issues to be concerned with this seems like a near zero cost initiative that has a meaningful impact. It’s a freebie so why not take it?

Sounds like a lot, but I bet it's less than one-tenth of one percent of all the plastic we dispose of. Throw out your trash in a 30 gallon glad bag and you've probably landfilled the equivalent of more straws than you would use in a year. Also, the straws can be recycled.

I have no problem with this so long as the cost of enforcement is minimal. There are many things we can do for the environment which could have some real impact, like giving tax breaks for rooftop solar. This just isn't one of them.