Yes on Prop. 67, No on Prop. 65--plastic bags

Dear Neighbors;
Here's a short article I posted on WineWaterWatch.org (https://winewaterwatch.org/2016/09/7...een-the-lines/) about the plastic bag propositions on the current ballot. It's confusing since there are two, and one is supported by the bag manufacturers. Single-use plastic bags kill over 100,000 marine animals each year. Please forward to anyone you can.
Thanks. deb preston

“7 is heaven, 5 is jive”. Prop 65 & Prop 67 between the lines
September 21, 2016 5-Top, Opinion, Resources

Wine Water Watch Recommends Yes on Prop. 67, No on Prop. 65

This election season offers two ballot measures regarding the statewide plastic bag ban that to the uninitiated may seem to go arm-in-arm, yet are in direct conflict with one another. These are Proposition 67, The California Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum and Proposition 65, the Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation Fund Initiative.

Proposition 67 is a referendum on Senate Bill 270, the single-use carryout bag ban. SB 270 prohibits grocery and certain other retail stores from providing single-use bags but permits sale of recycled paperbags and reusable bags. A “yes” vote on Prop 67 upholds or ratifies the plastic bag ban, and issupported by environmental & ocean protection groups and a number of municipalities and businesses, including grocers. A “no” vote on Prop 67 overturns the plastic bag ban and is supported by theAmerican Progressive Bag Alliance as well as a number of plastics companies.

But it’s Proposition 65 that likely will prove confusing for voters. A “yes” vote on this initiative (supported by the American Progressive Bag Alliance and the same plastics companies) proposes to redirect any proceeds from sales of paper bags that customers buy to a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board. Bag makers argue that supermarkets are profiting unfairly from selling paper bags.

But the statewide grocers association says the dime-per-bag charge covers their costs, with little left over. A “no” vote on 65 (supported by, among others, Surfrider Foundation and Clean WaterAction) is a vote against redirecting proceeds from paper bag sales. Although at first glance voters may think that redirecting monies from grocers to an environmental fund is a good idea, the Legislative Analyst’s Office notes that Proposition 65 might prevent Proposition 67’s bag ban depending on how courts interpret the propositions.

Roger Kube of San Diego’s Surfrider Foundation provided a critique that summarizes opponents’ arguments to Proposition 65. He said, “Prop 65 really is a cynical ploy brought about by the plastics industry to either confuse voters, frustrate grocers or divide the grocers and the environmental community on this.”

Wine Water Watch recommends a ‘yes’ on Prop. 67 and ‘no’ on Prop. 65. How to not be confused at the polls? Remember this jingle, courtesy of Cea Higgins of Surfrider: “Seven is heaven, five is jive”.

Sources: California Propositons 67 and 65, Ballotpedia, San Francisco Chronicle, August 29, 2016