Perez 1

Nathalie Perez
Period 3
Mrs. Hernandez
February 5, 2016
SB-270: Reasons to Vote and Reasons Not to Vote
Statewide ban of plastic bags that was successfully passed by the state legislature has
faced significant criticism and debates among the public. On the one hand, the proponents of
SB-270 assure that people should actively join this successful campaign initiated by the state
legislature because it will positively influence the environment and human health. On the
other hand, the opponents of the bag ban claim that thousands of grocery and pharmacy stores
as well as other large and small stores will have detrimental consequences. The current paper
aims to provide a discussion and assessment of both sides of the issue associated with SB270. In addition, the current paper reviews convincing evidence whether people should or
should not vote for this law.
The opponents of this ban emphasize that, despite the use of plastic bags threatens
human health and environment, people should not vote in favor of this bag ban because of
numerous convincing reasons (Putrich). To begin with, in case this ban is successfully
implemented in 2016, industries that use plastic bags, especially groceries and pharmacy
stores will be unable to survive because of heavy penalties and fines (Putrich). Second, this
bag ban will motivate industries to change plastic bags for paper bags. Consequently, this ban
will stimulate people to cut trees and, that is why, deforestation will definitely become one of
the most threatening environmental issues that will increase the possibility of the collapse of
global climate and biodiversity (Putrich). Third, the citizens of California should not promote
the bag ban because it takes away their voice and the freedom of choice (Putrich). Fourth,
many individuals insist on the fact that this law will limit work of hundreds of convenience

Perez 2
stores as well as mini-marts located on the territory of the state (Putrich). Fifth, people should
not support this law that bans single-use plastic bags because it will lead to high fines
imposed on the violators of this law (Putrich). For instance, the price of the first violation of
the rules imposed by this anti-plastic bag law is equal to $1,000. Therefore, the third
violation and subsequent violations of this governmental bag ban costs $5,000 per day
(Putrich). Thus, it is believed that implementation of this law has nothing in common with the
noble ideas that contribute to the environmental stability and preservation (Dintzer & Tan).
On the contrary, implementation of this law is a sly attempt of the government to collect
additional taxes for violations of the plastic bag ban. The researchers predict that a ban of
plastic grocery bags will certainly have adverse and desperate effects on low-income
households (Dintzer & Tan). Finally, some critics attempt to discourage Californians to vote
for this law because it does not correspond to the increased interests of California to conserve
such limited sources as water and energy (Dintzer & Tan).
However, introduction and implementation of the SB-270 has met thousands of
activists who believe that benefits of this law outweigh its possible disadvantages and
threatening consequences. Implementation of this law will positively impact the environment,
human health, and the economy of the country (Harman). Ratification of the documents that
prohibits single-use plastic bags will positively impact litter reduction, the quality of water,
and, finally, environmental protection. The authors of SB-270 promote the idea that this
document is a matter of a statewide concern and interest because it will promote recycling of
plastic bags (Harman). In other words, implementation of this law is considered to be an
effective governmental strategy to accelerate the design and mass production of so-called
reusable plastic bags that may be used approximately 125 times (Harman). Therefore, many
researchers estimate that the government plans to make plastic bags thicker with the primary
purpose to change consumer behavior (Harman). In other words, a ban of single-use plastic

Perez 3
bags will drastically change the behavior of the entire throw-away community that ignores
the obvious fact that plastic has a negative impact on the environment (Harman). Therefore,
even in case production of smarter, litter-friendly, and thicker plastic bags does not
motivate consumers to alter their current destructive habits, extremely high fines that range
from $1,000 to $5,000 will make people change their habits and make the necessary
conclusions (Spiegl). According to the results of statistical data, citizens of California use no
less than 14 billion or, in other words, approximately 53,000 tons of single-use plastic bags
every year. However, less than five percent of these plastic bags are recycled on the territory
of this state (Spiegl). Numerous members of Californian Against Waste, that is included to
the list of the most accomplished and famous environmental advocacy organizations,
emphasize those indifferent citizens of California should vote for this law in order to create
new standards that really matter (Spiegl). It is believed that disposable plastic bags are socalled symbols of progress of California and every person living here that votes for
implementation of this document (Spiegl). Successful implementation of SB-270 will
motivate thousands of shoppers to buy reusable bags in order to express their dedication as
well as commitment to environmental protection efforts (Spiegl).
Thus, after having reviewed and assessed both sides of the argument concerning SB270, it is possible to come to conclusions that successful implementation of this law is the
best option for California as well as all other states on the territory of the USA because the
cost to the environment, the quality of human lives, and the health of future generations is
extremely high if people vote against this law. One the one hand it puts at risk the growth and
success of groceries as well as retailers, and negatively impacts low-income families. On the
other hand, SB-270 stimulates the production of environmentally friendly bags and positively
influences environment and human health.

Perez 4
Works Cited
Dintzer, Jeffrey, and Andrew Tan. SB 270: First State to Ban Plastic Grocery Bags. Daily
Journal, 2015. Web. 5 Feb 2016.
Harman, Greg. The Winners and Losers of Californias Proposed Plastic Bag Ban. The
Guardian, 2014. Web. 5 Feb 2016.
Putrich, Gayle. Upcoming Vote Puts Single-Use Plastic Bags in the Crosshairs. Plastic
News, 2015. Web. 5 Feb 2016.
Spiegl, Matthew. Plastic: The Official Bag of California? Huffpost Green, 2014. Web. 5
Feb 2016.