A Stitch in Haste

Remember, you read it here first — over two years ago, in this post.

---

Just when you thought San Francisco couldn't get any more pathetic:

San Francisco may become the first city in the nation to charge shoppers for grocery bags.

The city's Commission on the Environment is expected to ask the mayor and board of supervisors Tuesday to consider a 17-cent per bag charge on paper and plastic grocery bags. While the goal is reducing plastic bag pollution, paper was added so as not to discriminate.

"The whole point is to encourage the elimination of waste, not to make people pay more for groceries," said Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste.

Environmentalists argue that plastic bags jam machinery, pollute waterways and often end up in trees. In addition to large supermarkets, other outfits that regularly use plastic bags, including smaller grocery stores, dry cleaners and takeout restaurants, could eventually be targeted.

Officials calculate that the city spends 5.2 cents per bag annually for street litter pickup and 1.4 cents per bag for extra recycling costs.

Of course, the cost of street litter pickup is not 5.2 cents per bag, but (essentially) zero cents per bag, since the streets would be cleaned anyway. (We all remember the difference between marginal cost and average cost from Econ. 101, right?)

And did you notice that little "cigarette tax" maneuver — they want to reduce waste rather than raise money? Then why not just ban plastic bags outright? Provide those free cloth "shoppers' bags" (a la free recycling bins for every home). Of course it's about the money — it's always about the money.

I hope they pass the stupid tax — I'd enjoy seeing the black market that arises, especially among San Francisco's (quite ubiquitous) beggar population: "Psst! I got primo bags right here buddy, straight from Sausalito — just 10 cents! Oh, and you ain't no plastic bag cop, are ya? Cuz you gotta tell me if you're a cop, or that's entrapment..."

Eventually we'll even have special episodes of "COPS: Bag Patrol." Or some third-rate sitcom will rip off the (two-part) Seinfeld episode where Kramer and Newman try to smuggle 5-cent cans into a 10-cent state.

Laugh so you don't cry.

---

Fast forward to the present: The plastic bag ban passed 10-1.

San Francisco supervisors and supporters said that by banning the petroleum-based sacks, blamed for littering streets and choking marine life, the measure would go a long way toward helping the city earn its green stripes.

First off, I'm not sure "earning green stripes" (whatever that means) is a proper function of government. The purpose of government is to protect individual liberties and provide public goods. Forcing people into "correct" choices ("correct" to whom? by what standard?) based on wild supposition (i.e., mere guesses) over de minimis issues (plastic bags are simply not a global catastrophe) is warm-fuzzy-feeling nanny statism at its worst.

Second, to borrow a phrase: Plastic bags don't litter, people litter. Why not just up the fines for littering (i.e., punishing those who actually do wrong)? Is that too archaic a doctrine for "enlightened" San Francisco?

Third, paper and plastic are not perfect substitutes. The fact that some people prefer one over the other proves that. Very very close substitutes, perhaps -- but not perfect. So banning plastic bags is not costless -- it destroys utility and consumer welfare. But it is of course the calling card of politicians to see (or imagine) only the benefits but never the costs of their legislative actions. Plus ça change...

Fourth, if there are objectively demonstrable negative externalities to plastic bags, then the original stupid idea the city considered -- a bag tax or deposit similar to bottle deposits -- would have been (marginally) less stupid than an outright ban. But when it comes to activist legislators, apparently it's "In for a penny, in for a pound..."

More thoughts from Hit & Run

The undisputed kings of nanny statism, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (a/k/a the Center for Making Your Decisions for You), have a new and ominous target:

When it comes to eating out, Americans love Chinese. And Chinese restaurants deserve credit for keeping a lid on saturated and trans fat, thanks to vegetable oil, no cheese, and a host of seafood, poultry, and (hooray!) vegetable dishes.
...
But Chinese restaurant food is loaded with salt and — if you're not careful — delivers a load of calories, thanks to its oil, noodles, and deep-fried batter or breading.

Of course, what never occurs to the diet police is that the reason that "Americans love Chinese" is precisely because it contains ingredients, healthy or otherwise, that make it taste good. Remove the salt, oil and deep-fried batter, and it's not Chinese food anymore. And therefore would cease being so popular.

This was the same lie that CSPI and other groups spread about the trans fat ban — that food tastes "exactly the same" with alternative ingredients. That's simply not true. Just as diet cola does not taste the same as regular cola, nor sugar soda taste the same as corn syrup soda, nor 1% milk taste the same as whole milk, neither do "healthy ingredient" alternatives taste exactly the same as their unhealthy versions. Changing the recipe changes the taste. And, truth be told, people eat unhealthy foods not out of ignorance, but out of their own subjective tastes and preferences. They like it.

So the question becomes: Where does CSPI go from here? Will they call for bans of "unhealthy" Chinese dishes or ingredients, as they have done in the past with other foods? Will activist legislators and their bureaucrat henchmen call for warning labels, or bans in school cafeterias, or advertising bans, or targeted taxes? Will class actions be filed? One from Column A and one from Column B? Stay tuned.

For Discussion: I'm actually not a big fan of Chinese food — except for sweet & sour pork (a/k/a Pork McNuggets):

More sugar means less salt. Sweet & Sour ... may be slightly lower in calories and saturated fat. But either way, you're eating more oil-soaked breading than meat.

Yeah, so? What's your point?

What's your favorite Chinese dish, and does it get a thumb's up or down from CSPI's menu? (PDF - 3 pages)

It's bad enough when nanny staters, such as New York City health commissioner Thomas "Trans Fat" Frieden, take it upon themselves to restrict personal autonomy in the name of curtailing the costs of socialized medicine (or, worse, simply for the sake of the "public good").

But it's far worse when they conscript doctors to do their thuggery for them:

Increasingly, doctors are being called on to serve a policing role by screening their patients for society's ills. Laws have long required health professionals to report injuries from weapons and child abuse, but in recent years doctors have been asked to extend that reach to other areas.

Six states require physicians to report patients who may be unfit to drive, such as seniors hindered by illness. And although unsuccessful after public outcry, federal lawmakers tried to get doctors to notify authorities if they treated illegal immigrants.

Strange, I always thought the function of a health care professional was to provide health care, not police patrols. Going to the doctor — or the school nurse or the dentist or the optometrist or the pharmacist or ... — should be for my benefit, not the government's. A hospital is not a customs checkpoint or central booking.

If the state wants to keep incompetent drivers off the road, then it should simply require recurring driving tests as a prerequisite for license renewals, especially among high-risk groups such as the elderly. And definitely leave the hunt (witch hunt?) for illegal immigrants to law enforcement.

Government agents have no right holding my well-being — or my doctor — hostage for no other reason than to make their jobs easier.

(Via Kevin, M.D.)