Senate passes plastic bag ban; bill heads to governor, but the gun bill is worst

[aGameOfThrones]

California lawmakers have approved a measure that would make the state the first to impose a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags.

SB270 cleared the Senate on a 22-15 vote Friday and sent to Gov. Jerry Brown. It was approved by the Assembly a day earlier.

Senators who had previously opposed the bill, including incoming Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat, this time supported the measure after protections were added for plastic bag manufacturers.

The bill by Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of Los Angeles would prohibit single-use plastic bags at grocery stores and large pharmacies in 2015 and at convenience stores in 2016.

It includes $2 million in loans to help manufacturers shift to producing reusable bags and lets grocers charge 10 cents each for paper and reusable bags.

The bill had sparked one of the most contentious debates in the last weeks of the legislative session, with aggressive lobbying by environmentalists and bag manufacturers.

For years, a statewide plastic bag ban has been an elusive goal for lawmakers trying to reduce the buildup of plastic waste in oceans and waterways that costs millions of dollars to cleanup. About 100 local jurisdictions in California already have adopted similar bans, including Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The city of Santa Clarita does not. But if SB270 passes is signed by Gov. Brown, the law would apply across the state.

People who were shopping at Santa Clarita stores Saturday had mixed opinions about the bag ban proposal.

“It’s ridiculous,” said Richard Baily, who was shopping at the Ralphs on Orchard Village Road in Newhall. “I don’t go to Albertsons for that reason.”

Ralphs shopper Diana Brannon, however, said people will just have to get used to not getting plastic bags at the checkout.

“We’re just going to have to bring our own bags,” Brannon said.

Agnya Solanki, who manages a 7-Eleven store on Valencia Boulevard in Santa Clarita, said he expects his customers will be upset at first.

“I think people are going to get angry...” Solanki said. “They’re going to get frustrated a bit, but they don’t have a choice. I think it’s a good change.”

Henry Urick, who lives in an unincorporated area in Castaic, said he’s used to the bag ban, which the county implemented this year.

“I’m accustomed to this law. It won’t have much of an effect on me. In the beginning I was upset, but now I believe it’s a pretty good law, because there’s so much waste going into our landfills and oceans.”

“We live in a throw-away society,” said Assemblyman Bill Quirk, D-Hayward. “What this bill does is to make an effort to do one little thing: Get people to use reusable bags.”

Opposition to the bill has focused on the 10-cent fee, which legislators of both parties have called unfair to consumers.

“We’re adding significantly to their costs,” said Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills. “This is a tax on our consumers.”

The American Forest & Paper Association, representing paper bag makers, says SB270 unfairly treats their commonly recycled products like plastic, while holding reusable plastic bags to a lower standard for recyclable content.

An influential grocer’s union, which had withdrawn its support earlier, now backs the bill.

After passing a flurry of bills, state lawmakers adjourned Saturday morning. Among the bills approved and now headed to the governor’s desk are:

— SB 1168, SB 1319 and AB 1739, a package of bills that would require some local governments to develop groundwater-management plans and allow the state to intervene if necessary.

— AB 1014 by Democratic Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of Berkeley, which would make California the first state to let family members and law enforcement officers petition a judge for a temporary restraining order to prevent someone from possessing a firearm when they appear to pose a threat.

— SB 831 by Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, which would ban elected officials from requesting payments on their behalf to nonprofits run by family members. It also places limits on spending campaign cash for personal purposes, such as on vacations and utility bills.

— SB 1442, pushed by Democratic Senate leaders, which increases detailed campaign spending reporting from twice a year to quarterly. Other bills approved in the final days of the session would place new restrictions on gift-giving to lawmakers and prohibit lobbyists from hosting fundraisers for elected officials.

— SB 967 by Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, requires schools investigating assault cases to use an “affirmative consent standard,” meaning both parties gave unambiguous, clear approval for sexual activity. It’s meant as a change that will provide consistency across campuses and challenge the notion that victims must have resisted assault to have valid complaints.

— AB 1522 by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, which would require most employers to provide temporary and part-time workers with up to three paid sick days a year.


Robert Spallone and The Associated Press contributed to this story.


http://www.signalscv.com/section/36/article/127046/

[69360]

Strangely, I'm mostly ok with this law.

It helps society as a whole and doesn't discriminate. 10 cents is cheap for reuseable bags, they cost $1 here.

There are a lot worse losses of freedom to get your panties in a bunch over than loss of freedom to use and throw away bags.

[brushfire]

Its none of the government's damn business whether I choose to use paper or plastic.


We happen to like using plastic bags to keep our son's sh!tty diapers in when we throw them away. Who needs a diaper genie when you got plastic shopping bags?

How about we ban busy body politicians? To 69360's point, isnt there anything else more tragic going on? How fking significant is a plastic bag, when we've got all hell breaking lose everywhere else.

Dont like plastic bags, start a publicity campaign and fund it with your own cash (and the cash of other like minded people). Our government does it all the time and they work. Just look at "global warming", recycling, etc...

Here's a good one that comes to mind


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Suu84khNGY

[limequat]

Lol, this is funny.

I recently stopped shopping at a place that uses plastic bags and now do all my shopping at places that do not have them. This has caused a minor crisis in my small trash cans and kitty litter process. Guess what? I'm now BUYING plastic bags to line my trash and to change the kitty litter. WTF?

Like all things there will be unintended consequences. I predict there will be an uptick in plastic bag sales for the reasons above. Net benefit to the environment will be little to none, but CA can happily masturbate in their self satisfaction.

The other problem is that there are instances at the grocery store where plastic bags are legitimately needed. Ever had a gallon of milk leak in your trunk? Ever puncture one of the ridiculous foil tops on a yogurt? Ever pickup a pound of beef that wasn't quite sealed? I hope Alex Padilla contracts salmonella after his organic chicken breasts drip through his paper bags.

[acptulsa]

Strangely, I'm mostly ok with this law.

It helps society as a whole and doesn't discriminate. 10 cents is cheap for reuseable bags, they cost $1 here.

There are a lot worse losses of freedom to get your panties in a bunch over than loss of freedom to use and throw away bags.

I pour the cat box into them. So much for the California legal definition of 'single use'. I always ask for paper, except when I'm low on plastic for that purpose.

I'm glad you're all in favor of narrow-minded California tyranny and hypocrisy. Excuse me for disagreeing.

[Anti Federalist]

Strangely, I'm mostly ok with this law.

It helps society as a whole and doesn't discriminate. 10 cents is cheap for reuseable bags, they cost $1 here.

There are a lot worse losses of freedom to get your panties in a bunch over than loss of freedom to use and throw away bags.

Yeah, thanks for endorsing the death by a thousand cuts strategy.

This is how liberty does die, one little bit at a time that nobody pays much attention to or thinks it's no big deal.

[pcosmar]

Strangely, I'm mostly ok with this law.

It helps society as a whole and doesn't discriminate. 10 cents is cheap for reuseable bags, they cost $1 here.

There are a lot worse losses of freedom to get your panties in a bunch over than loss of freedom to use and throw away bags.

So I need to pack 20 bags around with me ?

I don't care much for the plastic bags,, but I do reuse them for several things,,and I recycle those I don't.
I always preferred paper bags, But most places don't even have them anymore. and I am not fond of trees being used for paper..

but that was the reason Hemp was banned. to protect the paper industry.

[pcosmar]

The Gun Bill is worse,, and it will be ignored while people focus on shopping bags.

This shit makes me welcome the destruction of the United States. :(

[JK/SEA]

i'm already prepared for plastic bag bans. I just tell them to put all my groceries back in the cart. I have boxes in the trunk and put them in those....problem solved. I get those re-enforced banana boxes from Costco....

[GunnyFreedom]

— AB 1014 by Democratic Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner of Berkeley, which would make California the first state to let family members and law enforcement officers petition a judge for a temporary restraining order to prevent someone from possessing a firearm when they appear to pose a threat.

http://www.signalscv.com/section/36/article/127046/

The gun bill is pretty bad, but I dunno that it's really that far ahead of the curve of every other law advancing tyranny. I mean, it's actually kinda mild, considering where the beast could be flexing it's muscle right now, if you know what I mean. For Commiefornia that is. What I mean to say is that yes, it's really bad, but it's already really bad in Commiefornia, and this only pushes the envelope another few millimeters for them.

So although it really is awful, perhaps the fact that it's not that huge of an advance in and of itself (compared to California, of course) means fewer people will focus on it. Most folks will probably shrug and say "Heh, I thought they were already doing that there. The probably were, they just now got around to writing a law to support it." So it doesn't feel like critical news.

The bag thing is actually a bit more imminent, because it will actually affect something that people will notice. Human nature. If you wanted the gun thing to get more hits it shoulda been at the top.

I'd oppose the gun bill with blood, sweat, and tears, but they are probably just justifying a practice they are already doing, so it's not as though this is really breaking headline news alert stuff. Pass or fail nothing operationally will likely change, for the time being. But they will always ever creep into more power.

[Anti Federalist]

Not a good day in AmeriKa, if you're not banning something.


The gun bill is pretty bad, but I dunno that it's really that far ahead of the curve of every other law advancing tyranny. I mean, it's actually kinda mild, considering where the beast could be flexing it's muscle right now, if you know what I mean. For Commiefornia that is. What I mean to say is that yes, it's really bad, but it's already really bad in Commiefornia, and this only pushes the envelope another few millimeters for them.

So although it really is awful, perhaps the fact that it's not that huge of an advance in and of itself (compared to California, of course) means fewer people will focus on it. Most folks will probably shrug and say "Heh, I thought they were already doing that there. The probably were, they just now got around to writing a law to support it." So it doesn't feel like critical news.

The bag thing is actually a bit more imminent, because it will actually affect something that people will notice. Human nature. If you wanted the gun thing to get more hits it shoulda been at the top.

I'd oppose the gun bill with blood, sweat, and tears, but they are probably just justifying a practice they are already doing, so it's not as though this is really breaking headline news alert stuff. Pass or fail nothing operationally will likely change, for the time being. But they will always ever creep into more power.

[outspoken]

California is going to be the first state to implode on itself. They produce more laws than any products. Their only saving grace is that they have great weather but even that won't be enough to keep those that actually sustain the state with taxes from leaving in droves. At best, they'll keep the green-loving lefty corp types hanging on til they even revolt at the messed up system the having going there. They even screwed the porn industry with their condom laws.

[Weston White]

Sadly, but also funny, those very same people that moan and groan, including blame-shifting, over “climate change” (whatever) are the very same people riding home in their SUV’ loaded with plastic bags from Wal-Mart and Costco one or more per week.

Personally, my family has been using only paper bags since 2007—and for about the last year we started using our own cloth bags (purchased from Inforwars). We used to use the paper bags over again (then receiving credit to donate to Wholefoods causes—which we still receive using our own cloth bags) each week until they were too damaged and then used them to store our throw away recyclables each week.

Really, there just needs to be a public marketing campaign to inform everybody the importance and benefits of using reusable cloth bags; however, none of this ought to be mandated through public law. (That is just ludicrously insane.)

It is vastly important to note the serious issue with paper bags, is that they are not very durable (e.g., tearing apart, breaking handles, damp tearing bottoms), and that many shoppers have to walk home, ride on a bicycle, or take public transportation, using paper bags over plastic is a grave inconvenience for those individuals—doubly the case in the elements, rain, snow, etc.

With respect to the firearms portion, is that not already covered under California law? See, this is the point we are at now, redundantly, redundant laws, each on more arbitrary than the last. All to relentlessly expand our pathetically overpaid police-state. When will enough, finally be enough?

WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION (WIC) 8100-8108


8102. (a) Whenever a person, who has been detained or apprehended for examination of his or her mental condition or who is a person described in Section 8100 or 8103, is found to own, have in his or her possession or under his or her control, any firearm whatsoever, or any other deadly weapon, the firearm or other deadly weapon shall be confiscated by any law enforcement agency or peace officer, who shall retain custody of the firearm or other deadly weapon. "Deadly weapon," as used in this section, has the meaning prescribed by Section 8100.

Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=08001-09000&file=8100-8108

And following under WIC5150:


8103 (f) (1) No person who has been (A) taken into custody as provided in Section 5150 because that person is a danger to himself, herself, or to others, (B) assessed within the meaning of Section 5151, and (C) admitted to a designated facility within the meaning of Sections 5151 and 5152 because that person is a danger to himself, herself, or others, shall own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or attempt to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm for a period of five years after the person is released from the facility. A person described in the preceding sentence, however, may own, possess, control, receive, or purchase, or attempt to own, possess, control, receive, or purchase any firearm if the superior court has, pursuant to paragraph (4), upon petition of the person, found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person is likely to use firearms in a safe and lawful manner.


And further still, DV-110 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO/EPO):


9 No Guns or Other Firearms or Ammunition

You cannot own, possess, have, buy or try to buy, receive or try to receive, or in any other way get guns, other firearms, or ammunition.

You must:

Sell to, or store with, a licensed gun dealer, or turn in to a law enforcement agency, any guns or other firearms within your immediate possession or control. Do so within 24 hours of being served with this order.

Within 48 hours of receiving this order, file with the court a receipt that proves guns have been turned in, stored, or sold. (You may use Form DV-800, Proof of Firearms Turned In, Sold, or Stored, for the receipt.) Bring a court filed copy to the hearing.

The court has received information that you own or possess a firearm.

Source: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dv110.pdf

[aGameOfThrones]

Sadly, but also funny, those very same people that moan and groan, including blame-shifting, over “climate change” (whatever) are the very same people riding home in their SUV’ loaded with plastic bags from Wal-Mart and Costco one or more per week.















Costco doesn't give you any bags unless you buy the box of bags they will sell you.

[osan]

Strangely, I'm mostly ok with this law.

It is not the idea behind the law that is onerous. It is the application of force that renders this tyrannical.


It helps society as a whole and doesn't discriminate. 10 cents is cheap for reuseable bags, they cost $1 here.


Ah, the tried and true "helps society" ploy, right out of the "greater good" playbook.

Well, in some people's opinions, shipping all the knee-grows back to Africa would help society a whole hell of a lot more than banning the use of plastic bags, so why are you not cheerleading for that?


There are a lot worse losses of freedom to get your panties in a bunch over than loss of freedom to use and throw away bags.

And here, folks, is the attitudinal money shot. Be glad they're not doing worse. Comply like a good serf.

Lovely.

[osan]

Lol, this is funny.

If only.


Like all things there will be unintended consequences. I predict there will be an uptick in plastic bag sales for the reasons above. Net benefit to the environment will be little to none, but CA can happily masturbate in their self satisfaction.


Now THAT bit is eminently rep-worthy. I may have to borrow the concept, as it is so "me". You must be channeling my future dead-self. I kudo you for that, sir.

And the note about unintended consequences is on the money. Some people will use more plastic just to piss in the state bowl of cornflakes. Low to zero net improvement with possible increase in volume usage. If and when this is discovered and brought to the attention of the wrong people, look for more legislation, only this time with at least one of the gloves off, banning any plastic bag and possibly even making their use/possession some form of crime. In places like CA, no treachery or stupidity is beyond reach.


The other problem is that there are instances at the grocery store where plastic bags are legitimately needed. Ever had a gallon of milk leak in your trunk? Ever puncture one of the ridiculous foil tops on a yogurt? Ever pickup a pound of beef that wasn't quite sealed? I hope Alex Padilla contracts salmonella after his organic chicken breasts drip through his paper bags.

Your thinking process is waxing, kiddo.

Good job here.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Southron]

Wait. I remember when we were supposed to ask for plastic bags instead of paper to save the trees.

[dannno]

Wait. I remember when we were supposed to ask for plastic bags instead of paper to save the trees.

It actually takes less resources to produce a plastic bag than a paper bag, producing the paper bag takes oil to refine everything and transport it where the plastic bag is this thin layer of oil all stretched out that can be re-used and recycled. These stores should at least have the option of selling the plastic bags for $.10 as well.

I have been living in a place that has had the ban for about 6 months, fortunately it is not in place in the town 10 minutes away so sometimes I go there to get paper bags to hold my recycling and plastic bags for other uses.

[fisharmor]

I pour the cat box into them.
Yep, first thing I thought was "Where are they going to put their cat shit?"

Second thought was, "How are they going to keep people's newspapers dry?"

Third thought was "Wait a sec... who gets newspapers anymore?"