2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I don't think that what the senate came up with in this bill is what would yield the best results for the environment.  I would like to hear why they chose this tactic over other ones.  It seems to me that a higher tax (5 cents isn't enough incentive for me) or a ban on all bags with the option of purchasing a sturdy reusable bag would be a much better solution.  Plus, you would think that someone supporting the ban in this discussion would bring data on the outcome of plastic bag bans in other cities . . .  Instead, the senator went for logical fallacies like attacking the opponents character and the number of images of animals harmed by plastic bags without comparison to other harmful waste.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context