Argument Against Proposition 65

Proposition 65 is the initiative regarding the funds from the sale of carryout bags in certain stores. According to the Official Voter Information Guide provided by the State of California, if a state law prohibits distribution of free single-use carryout bags and requires a minimum charge for other carryout bags, this initiative would redirect these proceeds to a special fund — the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund — to support programs and projects related to recycling, beach cleanup, litter removal, clean drinking water, drought relief, habitat restoration, and state, regional, and local parks. A small portion of these funds would be used for grant administration and audits of the programs receiving funds. Proposition 65, or

The most obvious examples are in the arguments themselves. In the argument against Proposition 65, Murray calls attention to the backers of this proposition, which are out-of-state plastic bag companies to discredit the true intentions of this proposition. The rebuttal to this argument completely ignored this statement, redirecting attention to the supposed $300 million extra profit grocery stores receive. Hudson and Howard not only utilized the logical fallacy of misdirection and changing the topic to avoid addressing a certain issue, but they also oversimplified the situation, ignoring the cost it takes grocers and stores to provide the bags themselves. The value of $300 million is also fabricated. The argument in favor of the proposition utilizes strong language to rile the emotions of voters when it refers to the funds grocers receives as “a sweetheart deal in Sacramento.” The text is even bolded, to call further attention to this provocative language. The argument against Proposition 65 also appeals to emotions, referring to the stores as “your local grocer,” appealing to humanity and allowing voters to feel less detached to these corporate chains. In this argument, Murray explained APBA as “four out-of-state plastic bag companies who keep interfering with California’s efforts to reduce plastic pollution.” This simple description of a complex alliance disregards their numerous other

For example, in her article “Prop. 67 continues Sacramento’s war on free plastic bags,” Debra J. Saunders compared charging money for carryout bags to charging money for riding an escalator. This example is easy to understand, but not true, as Saunders leads readers to the incorrect assumption that carryout bags are free to provide in the first place. Saunders also stated later on that “California grocers support the bag ban because they get to pocket the money from mandated sales of reusable bags.” This is false, as Proposition 67 specifies that funds from the mandated sales of reusable bags will only be spent on bag provision, abiding the law, and educating customers about carryout bags and reducing waste. In his letter to the editors of The Sacramento Bee, Peter Mccallister of Sacramento similarly explained that he supported Proposition 65 so that “money collected from bag fees is guaranteed to go to an environmental fund, not big grocers.” Once again, advocates for Proposition 65 ignored designation of bag fee funds specified in Proposition 67 for the convenience of supporting their argument. Another letter to the editor from Dominique Thuy Nguyen of Simi Valley to the editors of the Ventura County Star states that “If Prop. 67 Passes, the only legitimate way for the law to actually help the environment is if enough people vote yes on Proposition 65.” This statement nullifies all of the