Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

azknight t1_j6s9t0e wrote

This law is basically resume padding for politicians to claim that they support environmental issues. A $300 annual cap on fines renders it completely toothless, even if it were enforced. The state isn't going to waste time and money constantly sending people out to narc on a Chelo's. I have no problems with trying to reduce pollution and waste, but it's pretty clear that this is not an effective way to go about it, and from what I've seen that sentiment is fairly common across the political spectrum.

52

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j6slo32 wrote

I genuinely wonder if the reps that wrote and supported this have ever gone thru a drive-thru in their life.

16

karnim t1_j6t3jd9 wrote

Honestly had they excused drive-thrus, and limited it to on-site dining there might have been some potential. But nobody going through a drive-thru is going to have their own straw. It just made things annoying.

9

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j6tzbzr wrote

Just limiting it to in-person dining makes more sense. As it was writtne, following the law is just going to lead to agitated customers taking it out on employees for something they don't deserve.

I guess I see the argument that it'd be too little of an impact but anytime larger environmental concerns get shifted to straws, we've basically lost the plot.

1

trabblepvd t1_j6xblx3 wrote

in-person also makes sense as a lot of to go drinks are in plastic cups or cups with a coating makign them non recyclable.

2