SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why the DP Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.
Dick Rudolph, Dana Point
It was nice of Brad Drew (Dana Point Times, July 19-25, Vol. 6, Issue 29) to weigh in, unfortunately, his response leaves something to be desired. Given an opportunity to clearly state what the City Council did and did not take into consideration while enacting the plastic grocery bag ban, he chose to refer me to Google and not state his case.
I infer from this kind of response either the matter is beneath the writer’s dignity and deserves no serious attention or the writer merely chooses to disguise his purpose with deflection into other topics, such as character assassination.
Missing the point completely of my discussion of the checkout process, Mr. Drew chooses to deny the reality of my experience and generously offers to share shame. Sorry, the shame is all yours, as is the bad science. To restate my point, did the council consider the full effect of the bag ban, or just follow the advice of its Google search? Speaking of which, those who want to do that search will find hundreds of sites which make the same statement, with the same false statistics and the same tone, almost as if the words came from one source.
That alone should put one off of using such “information,” but I guess its good enough for Frisco, so it’s good enough for the world. Besides which, if not using plastic grocery bags is such a darned good idea, why does it need to be enacted in a law? Cannot the citizens be convinced by reasoned argument to voluntarily stop using them?
The framers of the Constitution did not grant anyone the right to a clean environment nor the right of government to make choices for individual citizens. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to codify the natural rights belonging to all human beings so that citizens could have recourse to written law when those rights are violated. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power and scope of government in order to prevent the rise of oppressive rulers. The several states also adopted their Constitutions along with the federal one for the same purpose. The phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” from the Declaration of Independence should ring a bell. Of course, some people are happy only when dictating to others, which the framers clearly understood from their close association with the King of England.
I stand by my research into the topic of plastic bags and their environmental impact and declare the demonization of the bag and its prohibition to be fraudulent. What happens when the council-approved reusable bags start showing up on the sidewalks and beaches? Those bags then get banned and another council-approved container be mandated in its place? Great, the council will have this issue to gnaw on for time immemorial while still not addressing the basic issue of enforcing the existing litter laws.
To all you protectors of the environment, this ban does nothing to achieve what you say you want. Sophia Donahue (Dana Point Times, July 19-25, Vol. 6, Issue 29) is doing more by herself than the bag ban ever will. Ask yourself why all the actions required to improve the environment cost you either your treasure or your freedom. Is the environment the issue or just an excuse to pry one or both of those things away from you?