Says Tom Fletcher: “The nanny-state enthusiasts at Victoria city hall are running to the front of this parade, imposing fines and regulations on businesses and their employees starting on July 1, to stop them from recklessly putting customer purchases into plastic bags.”
Mr. Fletcher implies by his derogatory use of the words “nanny state” that Big Brother is interfering with our rights – again, this time by not letting us dispose of this very convenient convenience in our own individual manner. Seems though, despite his examples of the many uses of “single-use” plastic bags, post shopping, that many billions of these bags never-the-less end up in the oceans of the world, either whole or in part. And the BIG problem with these bags is they are among the first to break down into what is euphemistically called “microbeads”, much of which is confused for food at the lowest end of the food chain in the oceans. This is indicative of a population that doesn’t know what to do with these bags, and so throws them out in wholesale quantities, whether they are filled with trash or not.
Perhaps though, Mr. Fletcher has a point – there are a plenitude of exceptions to the ban on plastic bags to make it a political statement more so than a practical one. So maybe he’s thinking that, in order for this ban to achieve some effectiveness, the ban should be directed at the manufacturers of all plastic bags. After all, retail outlets have little choice in the way manufacturers package their products. Shall we go directly to the source, Mr.Fletcher?
Richard Weatherill
Saanich