4 ms·

They just recently banned the bags here in Chicago. I was disappointed that when I went to the store today they gave me a thicker plastic bag with "re-usable"

They just recently banned the bags here in Chicago. I was disappointed that when I went to the store today they gave me a thicker plastic bag with "re-usable" printed on it. It seems like an idiotic misinterpretation of the entire point of banning bags. What kind of BS political spin-job have we gotten ourselves into?

daemin 11y ago
I guess it means that the particular bag can be used more than once, a handful of times perhaps, before being thrown out. Not all reusable bags mean perpetual reuse, some just mean more than once.
- burntsushi 11y ago
  And plastic bags fit that category easily. e.g., I've been using the same run-of-the-mill-grocery-plastic-bag to bring my lunch to work for the last several months. We otherwise store all our grocery bags in a tiny cabinet for reuse whenever convenient.
- mc32 11y ago
  I don't think there is any bag which will offer perpetual use. Everything wears and degrades over time, be they plastic, canvass, burlap, nylon, etc. What matters is cost (environmental as well as production) and incidentals like whether they can suffocate children or sicken people by providing pathogen habitat, or even aesthetics (disposed on highways).
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  The currently-delayed-for-referendum (which will be part of the November 2016 general election ballot) statewide rule in California has specific durability requirements, including both objective measures of thickness, etc., and that reusable bags be designed for at least 125 uses for trips of a specified distance carrying a specified weight. I think that rules like this are fairly common in rules providing for reusable bags and banning single-use ones.
- jakejake 11y ago
  I definitely understand that this bag can be reused. I thought the point of banning bags was so people would bring their own bag, perhaps have to pay a bag tax or whatever. I don't see how these bags made it better at all - in fact it's much worse. The bags will be used (or discarded) exactly the same as the cheaper ones - it's just wasting 3x the amount of plastic. It just seems like a policy designed to reduce trash was twisted in it's interpretation and will actually generate way more trash. It's absurd!

daemin 11y ago

I guess it means that the particular bag can be used more than once, a handful of times perhaps, before being thrown out. Not all reusable bags mean perpetual reuse, some just mean more than once.

burntsushi 11y ago
And plastic bags fit that category easily. e.g., I've been using the same run-of-the-mill-grocery-plastic-bag to bring my lunch to work for the last several months. We otherwise store all our grocery bags in a tiny cabinet for reuse whenever convenient.
mc32 11y ago
I don't think there is any bag which will offer perpetual use. Everything wears and degrades over time, be they plastic, canvass, burlap, nylon, etc. What matters is cost (environmental as well as production) and incidentals like whether they can suffocate children or sicken people by providing pathogen habitat, or even aesthetics (disposed on highways).
dragonwriter 11y ago
The currently-delayed-for-referendum (which will be part of the November 2016 general election ballot) statewide rule in California has specific durability requirements, including both objective measures of thickness, etc., and that reusable bags be designed for at least 125 uses for trips of a specified distance carrying a specified weight. I think that rules like this are fairly common in rules providing for reusable bags and banning single-use ones.
jakejake 11y ago
I definitely understand that this bag can be reused. I thought the point of banning bags was so people would bring their own bag, perhaps have to pay a bag tax or whatever. I don't see how these bags made it better at all - in fact it's much worse. The bags will be used (or discarded) exactly the same as the cheaper ones - it's just wasting 3x the amount of plastic. It just seems like a policy designed to reduce trash was twisted in it's interpretation and will actually generate way more trash. It's absurd!