I am not sure of the hierarchy of political correctness for this one.
Do the disabled outrank the environment?
Am i supposed to think the Ban Straw movement are brave courageous Progressives or heinous deplorables that should be driven to the sidelines of society. (and probably racist too).
Hang on, let me check what CNN says for my moral guidance.
I think the facts show most of the plastic is coming from 4 rivers in the developing world, not from developed world refuse. They just need to clean up some rivers in China, India, etc.
Why not just have some biodegradable straws that the disabled can use? And if they don’t hold up as good in hot drinks, give people a couple. As for production, increased demand of biodegradable straws will increase the number of people making them.
My son needs plastic straws; he has an oral-motor dysfunction with his mouth. The biodegradable straws are not strong enough and many people with disabilities cannot control the muscles in their mouths well enough to use them without biting through them. Also, many of them are made with materials that are unsafe for people with certain food allergies. As long as allowances are made for people with disabilities, I don’t really care what restaurants do.
I’m not sure why straws are being made into the “thing” that needs to be banned. We use all kinds of plastic every day that can be recycled. In fact, cigarette butts are a much larger problem, in terms of ocean life, so maybe a ban on smoking at the beach would help a lot more.
Yet even if all those (500 million plastic straws per day) (8.3 billion straws total) were suddenly washed into the sea, they’d account for about 0.03 percent of the 8 million metric tons of plastics estimated to enter the oceans in a given year.
–people started turning the question to, “Hm, well, what IS the most significant source of ocean trash?”
Yet the No. 1 man-made contaminant in the world’s oceans is the small but ubiquitous cigarette butt — and it has mostly avoided regulation. That soon could change, if a group of committed activists has its way.
“It’s pretty clear there is no health benefit from filters. They are just a marketing tool. And they make it easier for people to smoke,” said Thomas Novotny, a professor of public health at San Diego State University. “It’s also a major contaminant, with all that plastic waste. It seems like a no-brainer to me that we can’t continue to allow this.”
A California assemblyman proposed a ban on cigarettes with filters, but couldn’t get the proposal out of committee. A New York state senator has written legislation to create a rebate for butts returned to redemption centers, though that idea also stalled. San Francisco has made the biggest inroad — a 60-cent per pack fee to raise roughly $3 million a year to help defray the cost of cleaning up discarded cigarette filters.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.