Is the Plastic Bag Ban the New Prohibition and Does It Violate Consumers Civil Rights

[sefnfot]

My question involves civil rights in the State of: CA

Is the plastic bag ban an intrusion on peoples privacy based on the 14th amendment and 9th amendment?
The ban is extremely discriminatory against the poor and underprivileged. Forcing people to pay extra without basis for the privilege of going grocery shopping. For example, they want you to pay 10 cents tax for a bag that costs the store 1 cent.
Local governments, specifically Los Angeles, are intruding on a private matter of an individual’s shopping habits. If you think this isn’t a private matter, then think about it the next time you shop for anything that you would prefer be kept private. In essence these laws are establishing your shopping habits as an open and public matter, giving the government free reign on your shopping habits.

Perhaps the same arguments made in the ROE vs. WADE could be duplicated in arguments against these bans… the privacy issue…

One last question: are there any US companies that are making the reusable bags, the ones that these local governments are imposing on their citizens? Or are they all made in China? Are these governments outlawing US products in favor of foreign made ones; any law against that?

It was stated that the reusable bags are worse for the environment because they are not recyclable and are toxic after its first use. So technically the outlawed bags, which are recyclable, are better for the environment than the reusable ones.

( i dont mean to debate the plastic issue here, I am asking based on the legal aspect of telling the government to stay off my shopping habits )

[sefnfot]

( i dont mean to debate the plastic issue here, I am asking based on the legal aspect of telling the government to stay off my shopping habits )

fyi, I want to point out that I am not a spammer nor do I represent any group, I am just an individual trying to cope with this new law and its ramifications. I did point out that I didnt want this thread to be one to debate the law, But I am searching for information that can be used for protection against the intrusion of this law; based on the 14th amendment

[jk]

fyi, I want to point out that I am not a spammer nor do I represent any group, I am just an individual trying to cope with this new law and its ramifications. I did point out that I didnt want this thread to be one to debate the law, But I am searching for information that can be used for protection against the intrusion of this law; based on the 14th amendment

just what within the 14th do you believe is being infringed?

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SECTION 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
SECTION 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
SECTION 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
SECTION 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[aardvarc]

Last I checked, there was no right to shop in a grocery store. But the government isn't impeding your right to shop or to buy anything you choose. What the bag costs the store isn't relevant. The tax is on the use/consumption of the bag. Dunno bout anyone else, but my plastic grocery store bags last and last and are good for lots of trips. If you're paranoid that random strangers in the grocery line or the parking lot may be able to see what you're carrying out of the store, I guess you're forgetting that everyone in the store can ALREADY see what you pick up off the shelf, what's in your cart while you're in the store, and can sit and watch and snicker and even take photos or video of what you put on the counter to be checked out too. And it could all be on store security video as well. So? The store knows what you buy, the checkout people know what you buy, every customer in the store can know what you buy - all because they can already see what you buy. By what magical process are you insinuating that the government will suddenly know what you buy, just because you've paid a tax on the bag or the bag is made of plastic?

Jk - we're about to have a run on aluminum foil. Buy buy buy that Alcoa stock.

[sefnfot]

First the Law is unfair to the poor, and therefore unequal. How are they supposed to shop? The rich and wealthy won't even notice 10 cents a bag.

I am more focused at the intrusion of privacy


Personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Prohibition in one form or another has been considered an injustice by most. Banning plastic bags can seem to be no big deal; but the repercussions of allowing the government to ban a previously legal act or behavior is a loss of liberty.
In regards to Roe V Wade, it is my understanding that personal privacy was affirmed in the decision outcome. And although there were public interests and overt public related consequences to abortions, personal privacy still won the day. In other words: public consequences do not absolve the right to privacy.
How is one expected to obtain provisions: this law does abridge the right to life and liberty? Are we expected to reverse the advancement of our culture and revert to primitive ways? How can one deny that the process of grocery shopping does not fall under the intrinsic words of life and liberty? For instance, which is a more dignified way of shopping for the western culture?

or

I will admit that due process was not abridged completely, but it was partially. When I visited family in Russia 23 years ago it was almost impossible to buy paper because it wasn’t allotted to the family since there were no school aged children in the household.
And this is besides the fact that the council members will probably be unaffected by this law, since they probably have their aids and servants do their shopping.

If you're paranoid that random strangers in the grocery line or the parking lot may be able to see what you're carrying out of the store, ......... By what magical process are you insinuating that the government will suddenly know what you buy, just because you've paid a tax on the bag or the bag is made of plastic?

It isn't a paranoia issue; it is the deprivation of the right in question. And this magical process is the very fact that the city has seized jurisdiction over this part of society by instituting this law
So if someone opens the ultimate private shopping experience for grocery shopping, then the law would be unlawful at such places?

[jk]

first, let me state that I do not agree with Roe v. Wade both because of what everybody understands is included in the opinion and then because what everybody believes is included in the opinion, in my opinion, isn't actually in the opinion. Also realize that my opinion or Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with abortions, either pro or con. I do have a position but it does not alter my opinion of the Roe v Wade decision.

then, I do not see how the banning of plastic bags is an intrusion of your privacy. If because it somehow exposes the purchasers purchases to public scrutiny, please read aardvarc's post. Also realize that the ban does not prevent you from re-using your bags that you already might own or any other means of carrying your purchases. You can roll a vault into the store and put your purchases in that if you choose to.

It appears there are many different bans with each municipality creating their own version. I do not know the specifics of any of them but it appears they, in general, ban a grocer from using one use plastic bags. It would appear that stores that sell items other than groceries can still use plastic bags so, what you do is shop at those stores to obtain a bag and then use that when purchasing groceries.

[PandorasBox]

I would like to see this though: One store did this for a while, but stopped (guess it was too much of a hassle for the cashiers). Bring in your own bags, you get 5 cents off your order, per bag used.

Other stores have a bin you can recycle your used plastic bags in....if the store wants to charge for a plastic bag, how about a reycling program that pays for each bag you bring back in?

I can see where the plastic bags go to waste. My grandmother kept them to use as small trash can liners. There was a point where I had a gigantic- shopping spree from Kohl's bag FILLED with plastic bags.

The bags do cost the store more than 1 cent, by the way. Your average size grocery bag is 5 cents.

As for making it hard on the poor....go into any WalMart and the recyclable grocery sacks are 99 cents. The stores still provide thin plastic bags for meat and produce to be placed in, right there by the meat area or produce areas. These bags....all you have to do is remove the plastic bottom and they can be laundered.

[cbg]

I haven't used plastic bags for over a year. I bring in my own cloth, washable bags, which cost less than a dollar each (ten dollar investment a over a year ago) and there hasn't been a single store, from the large grocery chains to the little independent market on the corner, which has objected to using them instead of their own bags.

[eerelations]

Reading through all this, I still cannot understand how a plastic bag tax prevents the poor from shopping.

[PandorasBox]

If a person is really too poor to afford ten cents for a bag each time they shop....again, 99 cents at WalMart, you have a reusable cloth bag that holds more, won't break, and can be washed.....