Do you agree with the idea of carrier bags being 5p in 2015

[-:Undertaker:-]

i dont understand why any1 would be against it tbh. ppl are irresponsible and use unnecessary amounts of plastic carrier bags for no gd reason when they go shopping, i see it first hand. reducing the amount of carrier bags we use will improve the GLOBAL environment and its in EVERY1S interest to do that. this little push clearly reduces the amount of carrier bags used by a substantial amount (look at wales they reduced carrier bag usage by 90% in 6 months) and it makes next to no difference to our lives. so wat its being forced on us? that doesnt matter because like i said it makes virtually no change to any1s life and it is for a gd cause

People are also irresponsible when it comes to sex, internet and drinking (which are a bigger issue than plastic bags)... should we regulate them? Just because you personally approve or disapprove of something doesn't mean you should have the right to decide for somebody else as that restricts their freedom. After all, if you do such a thing then what's to stop them turning the table and regulating or banning a vice that you may enjoy?

The freedom to do wrong or be stupid is just as important as the freedom to do right. Do not enforce your morality on everybody else via the law.

[karter]

a few years ago here in new delhi they had put a tax on disposable bags but literally nothing happened and people were still using them so they had to put a complete ban on them lmao

[Yawn]

On a somewhat related note, I went into an lidl/aldi (can't remember which) with a friend and I was totally shocked - you don't even get your bags packed for you, nor can you even pack bags at the counter, there's a separate bagging area - I mean, what's up with that?

- - - Updated - - -



But surely the decreased usage in plastic bags in England is going to have very little impact, if any, on the global environment. Also worth noting that a drop in carrier bag usage does not equal an equivalent drop in carrier bag littering.

making carrier bags requires non-renewable energy and the overall process has a MASSIVE carbon footprint

- - - Updated - - -

People are also irresponsible when it comes to sex, internet and drinking (which are a bigger issue than plastic bags)... should we regulate them? Just because you personally approve or disapprove of something doesn't mean you should have the right to decide for somebody else as that restricts their freedom. After all, if you do such a thing then what's to stop them turning the table and regulating or banning a vice that you may enjoy?

The freedom to do wrong or be stupid is just as important as the freedom to do right. Do not enforce your morality on everybody else via the law.

not when it affects every poor soul on this planet and every future individual on this planet sir

[-:Undertaker:-]

not when it affects every poor soul on this planet and every future individual on this planet sir

So HIV, STDs, healthcare costs from excess drinking, police costs in our towns at night and pregnancies don't cost anything financially or socially.

Right. But those plastic bags! Worst things in the world, BAN THEM NOW!!!!!!

[Yawn]

So HIV, STDs, healthcare costs from excess drinking, police costs in our towns at night and pregnancies don't cost anything financially or socially.

Right. But those plastic bags! Worst things in the world, BAN THEM NOW!!!!!!

i dont rly understand how charging 5p for a carrier bag at a checkout to deter ppl from using them and ppl getting diseases from having unprotected sex can be compared in this situation

:S
.

[-:Undertaker:-]

i dont rly understand how charging 5p for a carrier bag at a checkout to deter ppl from using them and ppl getting diseases from having unprotected sex can be compared in this situation

:S
.

If you don't agree with the state stepping in on the examples I gave - all of which are much more pressing, costly and disastrous on society - then you aren't arguing on any principle and are simply arguing for something to be banned because you personally do not like it. And that isn't a rational argument. It's the same argument people used to have against homosexuality being legalised 'ew I don't like that therefore ban it'.

I have never smoked and regard it as immensely stupid yet i'm the most vocal on here for defending the freedom of people who smoke.

[Yawn]

If you don't agree with the state stepping in on the examples I gave - all of which are much more pressing, costly and disastrous on society - then you aren't arguing on any principle and are simply arguing for something to be banned because you personally do not like it. And that isn't a rational argument. It's the same argument people used to have against homosexuality being legalised 'ew I don't like that therefore ban it'.

I have never smoked and regard it as immensely stupid yet i'm the most vocal on here for defending the freedom of people who smoke.

they aren't comparable. those issues are far more complicated and problematic..
if they decide to limit our freedom with something else after this thats a completely different situation. this change has had no uproar or complaints where its been implemented and its clear as day why it is beneficial. idgi u just seem to be mad that the shops have to charge 5p. and when the benefits are so obvious that becomes minuscule and the shops themselves wont even care because they will have less costs for carrier bags.

will reply later need to do some work xx

[-:Undertaker:-]

they aren't comparable. those issues are far more complicated and problematic..
if they decide to limit our freedom with something else after this thats a completely different situation. this change has had no uproar or complaints where its been implemented and its clear as day why it is beneficial. idgi u just seem to be mad that the shops have to charge 5p. and when the benefits are so obvious that becomes minuscule and the shops themselves wont even care because they will have less costs for carrier bags.

will reply later need to do some work xx

I could make exactly the same argument for one of the other issues and argue for state intervention/regulation on the grounds that it would be beneficial for society and financially too. Banning alcoholic drinking past 11pm at night would save many lives, money and many other problems for example. I won't though, because I don't feel the need to press the ban button everytime I see something I do not approve of or like.

The issue isn't whether it [the ban] is good or not for x, y or z: the moral issue is the use of force to impose your moral opinions on other people. The problem is, once you argue for your morality to be imposed on other people then what's to stop them turning around and imposing their moral opinions on you at some point? At which point you would have no defence.

Live and let live even if you aren't a fan. If you feel strongly about an issue like this, then stop it by setting an example rather than using the law.

[Kardan]

making carrier bags requires non-renewable energy and the overall process has a MASSIVE carbon footprint

- - - Updated - - -



not when it affects every poor soul on this planet and every future individual on this planet sir

Most things that are made end up using energy from non-renewable resources

Also, I found this interesting article, in Wales, it seems people are just starting to throw away the bags for life now, which is worse than throwing normal carrier bags away since the bags for life take even longer to degrade

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-24644620

[Yawn]

I could make exactly the same argument for one of the other issues and argue for state intervention/regulation on the grounds that it would be beneficial for society and financially too. Banning alcoholic drinking past 11pm at night would save many lives, money and many other problems for example. I won't though, because I don't feel the need to press the ban button everytime I see something I do not approve of or like.

The issue isn't whether it [the ban] is good or not for x, y or z: the moral issue is the use of force to impose your moral opinions on other people. The problem is, once you argue for your morality to be imposed on other people then what's to stop them turning around and imposing their moral opinions on you at some point? At which point you would have no defence.

Live and let live even if you aren't a fan. If you feel strongly about an issue like this, then stop it by setting an example rather than using the law.

well thats just u then. laws arent going away and if it can make a positive change then im all for it w/e

Most things that are made end up using energy from non-renewable resources

Also, I found this interesting article, in Wales, it seems people are just starting to throw away the bags for life now, which is worse than throwing normal carrier bags away since the bags for life take even longer to degrade

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-24644620

well yh duh but the nature of carrier bags means they are a massive source of carbon emissions and use up a massive amount of finite resources. its an easy point to start making changes

its 1 bag for life having trouble degrading vs the hundreds and hundreds of carrier bags that its replaced
(both the production of all those carrier bags and the waste of all those carrier bags) *shrugs*