3 ms·

Well, doesn't that imply that, if I am convinced a driveway-wash ban is a good idea, it makes more sense to agitate for better enforcement than give up because

Well, doesn't that imply that, if I am convinced a driveway-wash ban is a good idea, it makes more sense to agitate for better enforcement than give up because enforcement is too spotty?

lazide 4y ago
Yes. But no one does, generally, because they don’t care. At least after whatever original cause-of-the-month crusade got it in. In some cases, it may be a valid state, and it isn’t a problem now, but would be a problem if it was repealed. But that is a rare situation. In California, other examples off the top of my head include: - the nunchuck/throwing star/random scary weapon bans (went in during the 80’s because of ‘scary gangs’ in action movies, but it was an invented problem) - about 90% of common municipal recycling programs (aluminum and ferrous metals excluded) - federal anti-marijuana laws - a ton of vehicle modification rules/laws (though they are starting to get enforced now in some cases, which is good!) Therefore, having it on the books just gives ammo to folks trying to punish people they don’t like arbitrarily (instead of actually apply the law), and decreases overall faith in the system because it exists in that state. But folks get jerked around so much by panic-of-the-month, I’m not holding my breath.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  I think recycling might be a bit more practical if we gave up on the ridiculous idea of single-stream recycling, which offers a small amount of convenience to people at the cost of obliterating whatever small margins recycling offered in the first place.
  - lazide 4y ago
    When someone tries non-single source recycling, it becomes clear how much of the current recycling dog and pony show is bullshit - because all except a small hard core of folks won’t do it unless they get paid! Which, frankly, is a really strong signal. For those folks, they’re just wasting their time, because it has to go through the same sorting process as single source does, as everyone’s recycling gets co-mingled, and most others just throw random trash in there. And that won’t scale for non-economic recycling (aka currently things that aren’t Aluminum and certain other metals). In a lot of the Bay Area (even Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Santa Clara!) it’s normal for folks to go through every morning and raid everyones recycle bins for valuable recycling before the city trash vendor can arrive, then sell it. Everything else gets left of course, as it’s a cost, and usually just gets sent into the trash anyway.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      This is not some bizarre thought experiment that's never been tried; other countries, such as Japan, have had a system like this for decades. Once again, if we're serious we should be enforcing it.

Well, doesn't that imply that, if I am convinced a driveway-wash ban is a good idea, it makes more sense to agitate for better enforcement than give up because enforcement is too spotty?

lazide 4y ago

Yes. But no one does, generally, because they don’t care. At least after whatever original cause-of-the-month crusade got it in. In some cases, it may be a valid state, and it isn’t a problem now, but would be a problem if it was repealed. But that is a rare situation. In California, other examples off the top of my head include: - the nunchuck/throwing star/random scary weapon bans (went in during the 80’s because of ‘scary gangs’ in action movies, but it was an invented problem) - about 90% of common municipal recycling programs (aluminum and ferrous metals excluded) - federal anti-marijuana laws - a ton of vehicle modification rules/laws (though they are starting to get enforced now in some cases, which is good!) Therefore, having it on the books just gives ammo to folks trying to punish people they don’t like arbitrarily (instead of actually apply the law), and decreases overall faith in the system because it exists in that state. But folks get jerked around so much by panic-of-the-month, I’m not holding my breath.

emodendroket 4y ago
I think recycling might be a bit more practical if we gave up on the ridiculous idea of single-stream recycling, which offers a small amount of convenience to people at the cost of obliterating whatever small margins recycling offered in the first place.
- lazide 4y ago
  When someone tries non-single source recycling, it becomes clear how much of the current recycling dog and pony show is bullshit - because all except a small hard core of folks won’t do it unless they get paid! Which, frankly, is a really strong signal. For those folks, they’re just wasting their time, because it has to go through the same sorting process as single source does, as everyone’s recycling gets co-mingled, and most others just throw random trash in there. And that won’t scale for non-economic recycling (aka currently things that aren’t Aluminum and certain other metals). In a lot of the Bay Area (even Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Santa Clara!) it’s normal for folks to go through every morning and raid everyones recycle bins for valuable recycling before the city trash vendor can arrive, then sell it. Everything else gets left of course, as it’s a cost, and usually just gets sent into the trash anyway.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    This is not some bizarre thought experiment that's never been tried; other countries, such as Japan, have had a system like this for decades. Once again, if we're serious we should be enforcing it.