• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Considers $1,000 Fine for Waiters Offering Unsolicited Plastic Straws

Harshaw

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
California Considers $1,000 Fine for Waiters Offering Unsolicited Plastic Straws - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Calderon, the Democratic majority leader in California's lower house, has introduced a bill to stop sit-down restaurants from offering customers straws with their beverages unless they specifically request one. Under Calderon's law, a waiter who serves a drink with an unrequested straw in it would face up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

"We need to create awareness around the issue of one-time use plastic straws and its detrimental effects on our landfills, waterways, and oceans," Calderon explained in a press release.

This isn't just Calderon's crusade. The California cities of San Luis Obispo and Davis both passed straws-on-request laws last year, and Manhattan Beach maintains a prohibition on all disposable plastics. And up in Seattle, food service businesses won't be allowed to offer plastic straws or utensils as of July.
Click to expand...

This is based on an oft-cited number of Americans using 500 million plastic straws per day.

That number, however, comes from a survey done by a 9-year-old:

Eco-Cycle is unable to provide any data to back up this number, telling Reason that it was relying on the research of one Milo Cress. Cress—whose Be Straw Free Campaign is hosted on Eco-Cycle's website—tells Reason that he arrived at the 500 million straws a day figure from phone surveys he conducted of straw manufacturers in 2011, when he was just 9 years old.
Click to expand...

Now, the story has been updated:

Update: Reason spoke with Voleck Taing, a senior assistant to Assemblyman Calderon, who said they intend to amend the bill to remove the fines.
Click to expand...

But the fines are currently part of the bill, and the bill is still based on a number derived by a 9-year-old.
 
If you hadn't said the state in the title I would have likely thought this was an attempt at political satire. Considering it is California it isn't shocking in the least.
 
You do realize that it is possible to offer PAPER straws, or for companies to make straws which will biodegrade, yes?
The only reason this non-biodegradable type of plastic straw has become so commonplace is because it became impossible to compete with the use of such plastics.
Now some states are beginning to realize that the use of such plastics is actually extremely expensive.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You do realize that it is possible to offer PAPER straws, or for companies to make straws which will biodegrade, yes?
The only reason this non-biodegradable type of plastic straw has become so commonplace is because it became impossible to compete with the use of such plastics.
Now some states are beginning to realize that the use of such plastics is actually extremely expensive.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Click to expand...

I like my plastic straws.
 
Harshaw said:
Yep. For a straw.
Click to expand...

If some jackass tried to put me in jail over serving drinks with plastic straws, they will have started world war 3 because I would go nuclear on their ass's and give them excellent reasons to want lock me up. That penalty is not just stupid, that's abusive. Six months for a ****ing straw!!!???!!
 
Harshaw said:
California Considers $1,000 Fine for Waiters Offering Unsolicited Plastic Straws - Hit & Run : Reason.com



This is based on an oft-cited number of Americans using 500 million plastic straws per day.

That number, however, comes from a survey done by a 9-year-old:



Now, the story has been updated:



But the fines are currently part of the bill, and the bill is still based on a number derived by a 9-year-old.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think there needs to be more regulation in place in order to ensure we live in world with a more sustainable businesses and organizational models. This bill, however, does not seem to be a serious attempt to do so, and leveraging the fine at the level of the waiter/waitress is just... Well, that sort of says it all in who the rich and politicians think should bare the brunt of sustainability, no?
 
So....a server (they're called servers now, not waiters and waitresses) who works for a company, and is provided supplies and instructions by that company, are punished for handing out what the company has provided?

Do legislators in Cali the NK servers go out to the store to buy their own straws to hand out?
 
Harshaw said:
California Considers $1,000 Fine for Waiters Offering Unsolicited Plastic Straws - Hit & Run : Reason.com



This is based on an oft-cited number of Americans using 500 million plastic straws per day.

That number, however, comes from a survey done by a 9-year-old:



Now, the story has been updated:



But the fines are currently part of the bill, and the bill is still based on a number derived by a 9-year-old.
Click to expand...

Show us the proof that the number of 500 million a day is false.
 
First, let's all take a step back and discuss the actual facts of this story. The article is full of spin and the article title is clickbait. Let's start by looking at the ACTUAL bill proposal found at the following link:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1884

Here, you can tell that this is simply an amendment to CalCode (the California Retail Food Code). The amendment states:

SECTION 1. Section 114082 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
114082. A food facility where food may be consumed on the premises shall not provide single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer. For purposes of this section, a food facility shall not include the facilities listed in subdivision (b) of Section 113789.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in this new amendment are their any fines or terms of imprisonment added. Looking at the header of the bill, however, lets us see where this came from. The text in the header reads as follows:

Existing law requires, except as otherwise provided, a person who violates any provision of the code to be guilty of a misdemeanor with each offense punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months, or by both.
Click to expand...

This tells us multiple things. First, this fine structure already exists for the CalCode as it stands now. In addition, the article lists the worst punishment available for ANY code violation in CalCode. I would be the first to agree that any fines over the minimum would be ridiculous (especially for non-habitual offenders) but the new bill, as written, doesn't give any reason to believe that this will be the case.

To bolster the above statement, the following is the text found in CalCode that the header of the new bill refers to:

114395. Except as otherwise provided in this part, any person who violates any provision of this part
or regulation adopted pursuant to this part is guilty of a misdemeanor. Each offense shall be punished by
a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25) or more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by
imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding six months, or by both fine and imprisonment.
Click to expand...

Additionally, there have been complaints that this fine/imprisonment would be levied against the employee and not the employer. This is also not true, as stated in CalCode, as follows:

114397. The owner, manager, or operator of any food facility is responsible for any violation by an
employee of any provision of this part or any regulation adopted pursuant to this part. Each day the
violation occurs shall be a separate and distinct offense.
Click to expand...

CalCode can be found in it's entirety at the following link:

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DFDCS/CDPH%20Document%20Library/FDB/FoodSafetyProgram/RetailFood/CRFC.pdf

If you managed to make it through all of that, what are your thoughts on the bill now. It seems that fines are levied entirely on the business owner and that the types of fines listed in the article, while possible, are HIGHLY unlikely.
 
Last edited:
KevinKohler said:
So....a server (they're called servers now, not waiters and waitresses) who works for a company, and is provided supplies and instructions by that company, are punished for handing out what the company has provided?

Do legislators in Cali the NK servers go out to the store to buy their own straws to hand out?
Click to expand...

As per the California Retail Food Code (link in earlier post) this isn't the case. The employer is responsible for any infractions on the part of the employee. Seems right to me. Whether or not its the state's right to say what type of straw to use is a completely different argument.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Personally, I think there needs to be more regulation in place in order to ensure we live in world with a more sustainable businesses and organizational models. This bill, however, does not seem to be a serious attempt to do so, and leveraging the fine at the level of the waiter/waitress is just... Well, that sort of says it all in who the rich and politicians think should bare the brunt of sustainability, no?
Click to expand...

Take a closer peek at the actual bill(s). It doesn't levy any fine to the employee.
 
Midwest Lib said:
First, let's all take a step back and discuss the actual facts of this story. The article is full of spin and the article title is clickbait. Let's start by looking at the ACTUAL bill proposal found at the following link

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1884

Here, you can tell that this is simply an amendment to CalCode (the California Retail Food Code). The amendment states:



Nowhere in this new amendment are their any fines or terms of imprisonment added. Looking at the header of the bill, however, lets us see where this came from. The text in the header reads as follows:



This tells us multiple things. First, this fine structure already exists for the CalCode as it stands now. In addition, the article lists the worst punishment available for ANY code violation in CalCode. I would be the first to agree that any fines over the minimum would be ridiculous (especially for non-habitual offenders) but the article doesn't give any reason to believe that this will be the case.

To bolster the above statement, the following is the text found in CalCode that the header of the new bill refers to:



Additionally, there have been complaints that this fine/imprisonment would be levied against the employee and not the employer. This is also not true, as stated in CalCode, as follows:



CalCode can be found in it's entirety at the following link:

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CEH/DFDCS/CDPH%20Document%20Library/FDB/FoodSafetyProgram/RetailFood/CRFC.pdf

If you managed to make it through all of that, what are your thoughts on the bill now. It seems that fines are levied entirely on the business owner and that the types of fines listed in the article, while possible, are HIGHLY unlikely.
Click to expand...

How about you actually provide the quote in context?

Existing law, the California Retail Food Code, establishes uniform health and sanitation standards for, and provides for regulation by the State Department of Public Health of, retail food facilities, as defined, and requires local health agencies to enforce these provisions. Existing law requires, except as otherwise provided, a person who violates any provision of the code to be guilty of a misdemeanor with each offense punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding 6 months, or by both.

This bill would prohibit a food facility, as specified, where food may be consumed on the premises from providing single-use plastic straws to consumers unless requested by the consumer. By creating a new crime and imposing additional enforcement duties on local health agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's saying those penalties already exist in CA code. It also says it's seeking specifically to create a "new crime" and thus impose those penalties here.

Also, your own quoted text says "any person" is guilty of it. You then quote where the employer will also be held responsible.

If the fines were not in play, no amendment would be necessary to remove them. Yet the bill's sponsor says he is seeking those amendments.
 
Harshaw said:
How about you actually provide the quote in context?.
Click to expand...

I have no intention of quoting anything out of context. I chose my excerpts I found relevant and added sources to make it easy to check on it. I actually don't mind you providing the full context. The more that we read of the actual bill the less we focus on the crappy journalism.

Yes, it's saying those penalties already exist in CA code. It also says it's seeking specifically to create a "new crime" and thus impose those penalties here.

Also, your own quoted text says "any person" is guilty of it. You then quote where the employer will also be held responsible.

If the fines were not in play, no amendment would be necessary to remove them. Yet the bill's sponsor says he is seeking those amendments.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm not trying to sit here and make the argument that the bill is justified. I'm simply trying to frame the conversation on the actual bill in existence along with the new provision proposed so we can have an actual debate about it. For what it's worth, I'm not totally sure where I stand on it. But the article posted (and most others I could find on it) simply chose to make a cheap "California is going to lock all the servers up for giving away unrequested straws" claim, when I think most sane people would know that's unlikely to be the case. I will go further to say that IF these fines are imposed on the employee AS WELL AS the employer, that I am 100 percent opposed to the amendment and the bill as it stands. I would be less opposed if those fines were imposed on solely the employer. As it is, the text in CalCode seems pretty ambiguous to me (and as you pointed out).

Edit:
In regards to the bolded above, I took it as "since every infraction in CalCode is punishable by these terms, and this bill will be part of the code, it will be extension have the same terms of punishment." In my opinion (which is only that), the article frames this as its own bill that has its own punishment and that punishment is going to be really bad. Again, I'm not arguing the efficacy of the bill. Just that its not going to be the boogieman everyone is making it out to be
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
Show us the proof that the number of 500 million a day is false.
Click to expand...

This is what you take issue with? Are you defending this nonsense?

Edit: Oh wait, saw the username. Probably will; Doesn't give a **** about liberty.
 
Midwest Lib said:
I have no intention of quoting anything out of context. I chose my excerpts I found relevant and added sources to make it easy to check on it. I actually don't mind you providing the full context. The more that we read of the actual bill the less we focus on the crappy journalism.



Look, I'm not trying to sit here and make the argument that the bill is justified. I'm simply trying to frame the conversation on the actual bill in existence along with the new provision proposed so we can have an actual debate about it. For what it's worth, I'm not totally sure where I stand on it. But the article posted (and most others I could find on it) simply chose to make a cheap "California is going to lock all the servers up for giving away unrequested straws" claim, when I think most sane people would know that's unlikely to be the case. I will go further to say that IF these fines are imposed on the employee AS WELL AS the employer, that I am 100 percent opposed to the amendment and the bill as it stands. I would be less opposed if those fines were imposed on solely the employer. As it is, the text in CalCode seems pretty ambiguous to me (and as you pointed out).
Click to expand...

Nothing is improperly framed.
 
Harshaw said:
Nothing is improperly framed.
Click to expand...

I guess I have to disagree. When the article name states the most extreme and least likely scenario it's not likely to set the stage for logical debate, but partisanship. For what it's worth, this publication is more the rule than the exception in this regard.
 
Harshaw, disagreements aside on how we interpret the article and bill (I don't think we will bridge that gap), what are your opinions on the following, if you care to humor me.

I, like most others in this thread, would be against a fine levied against employees. If my interpretation is correct (I'm a software engineer, not a lawyer) and the employer is solely responsible for any punishment would you be ok with this type of bill?

More importantly, do you believe that having regulation on plastic straws is important? If so, do you have any ideas on how to properly regulate?
 
Harshaw said:
California Considers $1,000 Fine for Waiters Offering Unsolicited Plastic Straws - Hit & Run : Reason.com



This is based on an oft-cited number of Americans using 500 million plastic straws per day.

That number, however, comes from a survey done by a 9-year-old:



Now, the story has been updated:



But the fines are currently part of the bill, and the bill is still based on a number derived by a 9-year-old.
Click to expand...

And probably a nine year old illegal alien cokehead at that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom