January 15, 2008
A Good Use of the Legislature's Time...

...or maybe not.

Posted by Eric Earling at January 15, 2008 10:27 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Makes more sense than Oemig's moronic idiocy.

Posted by: Hinton on January 15, 2008 10:32 PM
2. Can I call THAT nannystatism?

Please? :D

Posted by: pudge on January 15, 2008 10:32 PM
3. I'm seriously thinking about putting together a citizen group to fight this lunacy. This is where it goes too far. If the rational among us don't stand up to such foolishness, it will only embolden the legislature to enact more useless and trivial controls over the minutia of our lives.

It was funny and somewhat expected to see this in San Francisco. But to allow such mindless legislation at the state level is over the top.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 15, 2008 11:00 PM
4. Jeff B: we have a citizen group to fight this, it's called the Republican Party. :-)

Posted by: pudge on January 15, 2008 11:31 PM
5. Some truths about bags.

Plastic polyethylene supermarket bags cost about one penny each. Paper bags cost a nickel each. Biodegradable corn starch bags, about 10 cents each. Allowing WA to ban poly bags will increase the price of consumer goods, because retailers sure as heck aren't going to pay for this folly.

But what's worse is that sanctimonious environmental types like Maralyn Chase, D-Shoreline don't really care much about the environment. If they did, then they would be willing to acknowledge that recycling paper bags actually consumes far more energy than the production of plastic bags. That's more pollution too, to create that extra energy. And because of the oxygen deprived area of a landfill, the easily compressible plastic bags take up far less space, and paper bags don't decompose much faster.

What's more is that studies show that people are far more likely to find household uses for poly bags they bring home from shopping trips. In effect, a personal recycling program. Around our house we use poly bags for far more uses than we ever did paper bags. And they take up less space, encouraging us to keep more bags for other uses.

And consumers prefer plastic bags. Ever try to carry several bags of groceries at once? With plastic bags, you can carry more groceries at one time. It's more dependent on how much you can lift and not what you can fit in your arms as with paper.

This is not about recycling, reducing oil dependence or saving baby turtles. This is about control. If the legislature was serious about modifying behavior with regard to grocery bags, they would have a far greater compliance by offering voluntary recycling programs or incentives. Instead, there is the knee jerk to trivial legislation that controls ever more ridiculous minutia of our daily lives.

Someone ought to check the PDC records too, and see whether alternative grocery bag manufacturers or suppliers might be helping Rep. Chase with her environmental epiphany.

Or perhaps it's just a desire to join the ranks of the extreme left legislators club and prove that San Francisco has nothing on Seattle when it comes to Progressive control freaks.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2008 12:19 AM
6. I regularly shop at PCC, where they have banned plastic at checkout. But don't be fooled---they still ask you if you want your meat put into plastic, and they still offer plenty of plastic bags for produce. So the whole thing is kind of window dressing, imo.

Posted by: Michele on January 16, 2008 12:21 AM
7. ...and i do bring back to PCC for multiple re-use the paper bags they use at checkout, which is all they offer for general grocery bags (but see my above post). I like them, but when they announced that plastic bags would be discontinued for groceries, my wise-cracking hubby quipped "But how will they save the trees????"

I guess they're not going to....

Posted by: Michele on January 16, 2008 12:25 AM
8. pudge, in this state, I'm not so sure the Republican party is trying very hard. Maybe the safe seats, but Republicans in blue districts do as they are told and keep a low profile.

I think it would be a lot more helpful if a vocal group specifically educated consumers about the myths of plastic bags. And the cost increases consumers would see with a bag ban.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2008 12:33 AM
9. I too, like Jeff, find more uses for the plastic bags around my house then the paper bags. I line my waste basket in the bathroom and line my basket by my desk using a basket designed to hold the plastic bags and while cleaning the cat box. Also, I use the plastic bags for fragile Christmas gifts and it's alot cheaper then buying the plastic bubble. And for those of you that travel, fold the plastic bags lengthwise along the fold lines of your garments and you won't have any creases in your garments at the other end of your trip.

This business that the government has to control all our lives has got to stop! First they didn't want us to use paper bags because it took to many trees from our forest (Think spotted owl) and now they don't want us to use plastic bags anymore because of the fisheys. What's next!


Posted by: Janet on January 16, 2008 02:56 AM
10. The first thing that jumped to my mind when i first heard about this in SF was "what will people use to pick up there dog shit?" Instead of getting bags for free with your groceries, pet owners will be buying plastic bags like crazy. It's no small amount, dogs poop a lot. Especially in liberal areas where there are more dogs then kids, it's a big deal.

Posted by: bryan on January 16, 2008 05:57 AM
11. Next thing you know they will ban toilet paper.

I know one ex-County Councilman of a large county who regluarly eschewed toilet paper for newspapers and magazines like in the old days.

Posted by: swatter on January 16, 2008 06:58 AM
12. Anyone who votes to ban plastic bags should be required to carry a full car of groceries up two flights of stairs every week.

Like others here, we reuse plastic bags for alot of things - cleaning the cat box, taking lunch to work, storing wet swimsuits, etc.

Posted by: Palouse on January 16, 2008 07:45 AM
13. We save our plastics, like Palouse, until the bottom falls out, and then we toss.

Posted by: swatter on January 16, 2008 08:23 AM
14. When the Taliban ran Afganistan, they banned paper bags on the grounds that the Quran resided on paper, so it was disrespectful to use paper for non-elevated purposes. A huge run on toilet paper followed, in anticipation of a possible ban.
In India plastic bags were banned because (sacred) cows were ingesting them.
So it's no surprise that Seattle would eventually have to have some kind of bag ban too.

Posted by: russell garrard on January 16, 2008 08:51 AM
15. That one is pretty bad, but SB 6304 is even more absurd in my opinion.

SB 6304 is, paraphrased, a bill created because the legislature finds that due to recent events on college campuses (clearly referring to UW, VT, etc), they feel that they should give the universities of washington the right to ban firearms on campuses.

Even if you're against guns, I challenge you to consider this: Did the legislature bother to find that murder, illegal discharge of a firearm within city limits and harm to others were already illegal?

Imagine, for a moment, that you are Cho Seung Hui and you're headed to UW for whatever deluded reason. You have murder on your mind, but you see a no firearms sign.

Do you:

a) Say "Gee, no firearms are allowed. I was gonna murder some bitches, but I guess I won't now since I'm not allowed to carry a gun on campus"
b) Ignore it and break that law along with the other 2, 4, or 10 laws you're breaking anyway?

It's time to stop treating every problem like it's a nail to be hammered in with the proverbial hammer of legislation.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 16, 2008 08:56 AM
16. That's correct Andrew. The solution is not banning weapons but actually making them more prevalent. Of course not everyone will be prepared to properly carry and operate a handgun. And thus certainly won't qualify for a concealed carry permit. But, there are plenty of other effective weapons that could have easily ended Cho Seung Hui's massacre a lot sooner.

If every citizen carried pepper spray or a taser, etc. or whatever weapon that they could legally and effectivvely use, then crime would drop drastically. If criminals read over and over about average Joes that rose up to stop violent crime, rather than being the good little passive victims that the gun banners want, then crime would subside.

There's no way that we could ever have enough police to be at the right place and the right time when tragedies like those of UW and VT happen. But there will always be other people around, and those individuals that take personal responsibility seriously and defend themselves are a lot less likely to die in a massacre than the cowards that listen to gun ban rhetoric.

Remember the one guy at VT who barricaded the door to his classroom after initially cowering behind a podium. He saved his life and the lives of others because he was not passive. Every classroom at VT had the element of surprise. If I know Cho is methodically shooting up classrooms and I've got one good shot to get off with pepper spray to his face as he opens the door, that might be enough to confuse him to the point of confiscating his gun and shooting him in the head ending the spree.

Wut we won't get there with Progressive Democrats screaming for gun bans and turning us all into cowards. Cowards who have the naivety to believe that banning guns will make criminals reconsider.


Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2008 09:31 AM
17. That's correct Andrew. The solution is not banning weapons but actually making them more prevalent. Of course not everyone will be prepared to properly carry and operate a handgun. And thus certainly won't qualify for a concealed carry permit. But, there are plenty of other effective weapons that could have easily ended Cho Seung Hui's massacre a lot sooner.

If every citizen carried pepper spray or a taser, etc. or whatever weapon that they could legally and effectivvely use, then crime would drop drastically. If criminals read over and over about average Joes that rose up to stop violent crime, rather than being the good little passive victims that the gun banners want, then crime would subside.

There's no way that we could ever have enough police to be at the right place and the right time when tragedies like those of UW and VT happen. But there will always be other people around, and those individuals that take personal responsibility seriously and defend themselves are a lot less likely to die in a massacre than the cowards that listen to gun ban rhetoric.

Remember the one guy at VT who barricaded the door to his classroom after initially cowering behind a podium. He saved his life and the lives of others because he was not passive. Every classroom at VT had the element of surprise. If I know Cho is methodically shooting up classrooms and I've got one good shot to get off with pepper spray to his face as he opens the door, that might be enough to confuse him to the point of confiscating his gun and shooting him in the head ending the spree.

But we won't get there with Progressive Democrats screaming for gun bans and turning us all into cowards. Cowards who have the naivety to believe that banning guns will make criminals reconsider.


Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2008 09:31 AM
18. Chase is one of the sponsors for the carbon tax bill which according to their own numbers will cost the citizens of Washington Billion of $ each year. In ten years the cost will exceed $18 billion. Imagine that. A climate warming hoax is being bought and paid for by the citizens of Washington State. I feel that this is a larger issue than plastic bags.

Posted by: Snuffy on January 16, 2008 10:03 AM
19. Jeff B., I agree with most of what you said, but this is apparently incorrect: "Of course not everyone will be prepared to properly carry and operate a handgun. And thus certainly won't qualify for a concealed carry permit."

Washington is a shall-issue state. You do not need to prove proficiency in handgun operation to get a concealed carry permit. Thankfully. See RCW 9.41.070. If you can legally possess a firearm (e.g., are not insane), are 21, and have no legal action taken against you that suspends or revokes your rights, and you supply the required information and fees, then you must be granted a concealed carry permit.

Posted by: pudge on January 16, 2008 11:25 AM
20. pudge,

I agree, I was writing in generalities for the US as a whole. My point is that people can and should carry weapons, but that everyone should do so legally, and within the bounds of their ability to operate those weapons. Personally, I would consider my own ability to safely operate any weapon a qualification for use of that weapon. Mostly because I don't want to inadvertently maim myself or others. WA is a much better place than other states that don't have shall-issue laws.

But everyone needs to take more personal responsibility to both acquire the weapon of their capabilities and then learn to use that weapon and practice under a certain amount of duress so that if / when the need arises they are prepared.

We've already seen just such an instance at the MegaChurch in CO. And the more we see of that, the better it will be for all. In fact it really would not take too many highly publicized cases in each region to make criminals start to think twice.

And there is really nothing quite as gratifying as the immediate justice of a perp that gets foiled in his plan to produce mayhem, especially when the intent is to produce violence and the perp ends up severely injured or dead. Actions have consequences. And there's nothing like a timely result.


Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2008 12:06 PM
21. Wasn't it the environmentalists that pushed for plastic bags a couple of decades ago to save the trees?

Posted by: RBW on January 16, 2008 01:58 PM
22. Don't those same nuts wrap the small trees in plastic bags to give them away.

Just AXING

Posted by: GS on January 16, 2008 03:43 PM
23. This same idiot teamed up with Bluto Simpson to bring us HB 2420, a carbon tax that by quick observation will cost the taxpayers a million dollars a day. Oh, that's just the first year. It goes up REAL FAST.

Posted by: PC on January 16, 2008 04:27 PM
24. By year ten this HB 2420 carbon tax will extract from the taxpayers of this state 27 Billion dollars!

If you are not recieving emails of each and every daily attempt by this legislature to extract more of your dwindling supply of money, go to the State web site that they had to put up as a result of us overwhelmingly supporting I960.

It will send you emails as you wish

The site is

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/tax/default.asp

Sixty days of this kind of legislative crap will bring us a new day in this state come November.

Posted by: GS on January 16, 2008 04:42 PM
25. This SB 2420 bill will directly add 10 Cents a gallon per year to your gas bill per year it is in existance, from 10 cents in 2008 to $1.00 per gallon in 2017.

On top of that the producers and importers of these fuels will be taxed roughly an additional 2/3 of the above rate.

So this SB alone will raise your gas per gallon in 2008 aproximately 17 cents a gallon and will double every year for ten years to aproximately $1.70 cents per gallon.

On top of that all products, services, travel, costs will be increased to cover the massive costs to their businesses of this tax, and those costs will be passed on to the consumer in higher energy, travel, food, service, commodity, and other costs.

This SB2420 must be defeated!

Read it and weep for your pocket book

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2420&year=2007

Then contact your legislative representative.

Posted by: gs on January 16, 2008 07:00 PM
26. It is well pass the time for adults to manage the government. Here we are in the first few days of the session and the kids buying into the "carbon" scam with our money. Time to elect conservative adults. I imagine that there may be a time when you will be required to hold your breath or pay for exhaling. In this state we pay for dieing.

Time to vote the idiots out of office.

Posted by: Snuffy on January 16, 2008 07:11 PM
27. Yeh Snuffy, don't give them any ideas, they will develop a mask that charges you for every puff of air you take.

I think we should send all of our plastic bags to Olympia, there are a few old hags down there who would be better to look at with one over their head!

Posted by: GS on January 16, 2008 08:42 PM
28. Just D's pandering to their voter base.

They should focus on real problem like the spread of diseases by their beloved homosexuals.

Posted by: Independent Voter on January 17, 2008 05:03 AM
29. Swatter-
Your comment on using newspapers to replace toilet paper actually has some merit. I personally can't think of a better use for the Seattle P-I. (Especially when I see a page with Paul Krugman's picture on it.)

Posted by: johnny on January 17, 2008 12:28 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?