Bag this idea
Published: Friday, Sept. 6, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Let me get this straight: State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery County, wants to charge me for every plastic bag that a large retailer uses (“Bill by Pennsylvania lawmaker would tax plastic bags by 2 cents,” Aug. 26 and TribLIVE.com)? I trust that this will not apply to the grocery stores. The plastic bags they use can't hold more than three items with a combined weight of 5 pounds.
At times, they have to double-bag because the “handles” rip off, the food boxes puncture the plastic or, heaven forbid, two half-gallons of milk are in the same bag. I end up having 10 or more bags for 25 to 30 food items. Odds are 50/50 that I can't make it from the car to the house without at least one bag having a hull breach.
Are these the same people who said paper bags were bad for the environment? Back when paper was the only choice (and it's still superior), we only had to worry about condensation wetting the bags.
Plastic bags were a bad idea years ago. That didn't stop retailers from forcing shoppers to use them. Reusable bags will eventually be the way. But please, Sen. Leach, don't tell me that you want me to think twice about how many plastic bags I tote home. I never wanted them in the first place!
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Hunt where the deer are
- ACA deserves support
- About time for Gilpin
- Harming, not improving
- Handled it well
- Remember Pearl Harbor
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- Us & them
- Thanks to our veterans
- Ethanol’s benefits
- Eagles’ plight