Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Is banning plastic straws really a good idea?

Scroll to see replies

It's cos straws are much easier to ditch. You'd have to find a suitable replacement for plastic fishing nets.

Replacing is just a better way to deal with it, not ditching completely. I've seen Sainsburys selling paper straws right next to plastic ones recently, and these ''bio'' cutlery (not sure what they are, but they seem to be biodegradable plastic material - progress!) which is awesome!

Finding a suitable replacement might be an issue, but there's no pressure on the fishing industry to change because no one is really focusing on the fishing net issue, so why would they change?

Reply 21

Obolinda

Volunteer Team

Original post by iseesparksfly

Finding a suitable replacement might be an issue, but there's no pressure on the fishing industry to change because no one is really focusing on the fishing net issue, so why would they change?

http://www.fao.org/in-action/globefish/fishery-information/resource-detail/en/c/388082/

Reply 22

nexttime

Original post by kpwxx

As far as I understand, the main serious risk associated with lack of access to a straw or using one that's not suitable is aspiration, which can lead to pneumonia. It's quite hard to find stats on this but it absolutely is a real risk for many people and to suggest otherwise is frankly quite insulting to those people.

Straws do not prevent aspiration. Straws are a risk for aspiration - they make it worse.

There's a reason that straws are very commonly used in hospitals.

I've worked in a hospital for 5 years. I've never seen a straw being used, other than for patients with dementia who spill their drinks everywhere if they're not covered.

Where on earth did you get this idea from?! Its just a complete falsehood. Straws are not some kind of common equipment used by the "disabled" - what do you even mean by that anyway, its not some homogeneous identity - some exceptions perhaps - people who are exceptionally weak but still strong enough to use a straw and get about to restaurants, people who have significant coordination issues but again are still able to get out to restaurants - but those can be easily dealt with with reusable or just on-prescription straws. No big deal

To emphasise: a very very small group of people with very specific disabilities may be somewhat inconvenienced by this ban as they will now have to carry their own straws. Absolutely no one will be harmed, and certainly no one will be killed! Pretending so does not do credit to your argument.

We're not talking forcing everyone to use a straw here. You and any other person who doesn't need a straw could simply not use one. Ta-da! Planet saved (?) without banning an essential tool that others need.

Sorry but this is a very naive attitude. Look at the plastic bag 5p charge - plastic bag use plummeted 85%. We all knew they were bad for the environment before that, we all had easy access to reusable bags before that. But it wasn't convenient so no one did anything. Then a 5p charge - 5p - is absolutely transformative.

We've been relying on the goodness of people's hearts for years and look where that's got us. Its time to do something that means people actually change behaviours.

The point of referencing the extremely low percentage of plastic ocean waste that is straws is that it would be more reasonable to focus efforts on a much larger issue, in a way that doesn't harm or kill people. If we had eradicated say, all fishing net waste and all pointless plastic like wrappers that are purely cosmetic, takeaway cups for cafe customers who dine in, etc

Ok so rather than tackling plastic straws which very very few people need and there are easy alternatives, you want to try and take on the very technical problem of tangled fishing nets, and the entire marketing industry for using plastic packing? Both noble aims sure, but honestly that is going to take vast vast amounts of campaigning, money and effort, and in all honesty with the power corporations hold over politicians I don't see it ever happening, especially in say the US. But it all would be much easier if we already have precedent from a much smaller campaign - say against I don't know... plastic straws?!

Now imagine you ask for it and are ridiculed for being a horrible person, you explain that it's putting your life at risk, that you need it, and someone tells you 'Your life isn't important enough to factor into this'... and we have a public awareness campaign to stop people who don't need straws using them

You think that a ban on plastic straws (so that people don't even think about the issue any more, because its not an option) will cause hate on those that need them, but a big loud public campaign about how awful they are will... just be fine? Just including a sentence about how some people need them won't stop people being questioned.

Your solution will make the problems you are worried about much worse.

I know what you mean when you say about taking a small step (the whole "you have to start somewhere"/"every little helps" philosophy, which is totally a valid idea) but that argument is usually used when someone's reason for not doing something is 'What's the point, it's a drop in the ocean, this small action will hardly make a difference'.

That's literally what people above were saying.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 23

kpwxx

Original post by nexttime

That's literally what people above were saying.

You've cut off some of my quotes mid sentence to purposely misconstrue what I was saying.

I explicitly said that a public awareness campaign should include clarification that some people need straws. Think along the lines of the Change 4 Life campaigns. "Some of us need straws to help us drink safely. If you don't, not taking one can help the environment.". a pretty simple message that I think most people would understand. I could be wrong but I do know for a fact that people are already being harassed by both staff and members of the public for using or asking for straws, so spreading the message that some people need them can only keep it the same or make it better.

I also said "I know what you mean about small steps but *here's why I don't think it applies in this case*. instead of countering that you simply cut off my paragraph mid way to make it look like I hadnt read yours posts and agreed with your conclusions.

I do, however, think that the every little helps argument applies to the case of campaigning.

Again you're using the very few people argument which is all well and good if you're in the majority but if you're one of the very few it's a big deal. I believe it's very important to be an advocate for people for minorities who've asked for help.

Of course I'm not referring to all disabled people. I'm just referring to those disability means they need straws to drink safely. I'm basing my information on listening to disabled people talking about their needs, and the fact that flexible straws were first sold to hospitals, rather than restaurants, and were marketed for use in hospitals and with children, and reading the opinions of Occupational Therapists.

I also think the prescription straw idea is laughable. It would make access much much harder for people who already face significant barriers everywhere they go, and think how much it would cost the NHS per year!!! As well as the individuals. We've already seen through many examples that making something specialist/medical means that the price skyrockets. I could very easily see people who used to get a big box of straws for a pound that would last them ages, paying and £8 prescription fee for a smaller box that the NHS paid £12 for.

Reply 24

nexttime

Original post by kpwxx

I explicitly said that a public awareness campaign should include clarification that some people need straws. Think along the lines of the Change 4 Life campaigns. "Some of us need straws to help us drink safely. If you don't, not taking one can help the environment.". a pretty simple message that I think most people would understand.

And I explicitly said this would not stop disabled people from being challenged/asked about their disability, which is still distressing. Simply banning straws is a much better solution to this problem.

I could be wrong but I do know for a fact that people are already being harassed by both staff and members of the public for using or asking for straws, so spreading the message that some people need them can only keep it the same or make it better.

We could spend lots of money on advertising yes (pulling lots of money away from the other sensible campaigns you've suggested) OR we could just ban them so that people just bring their own and this problem goes away. I know which I'd prefer.

Again you're using the very few people argument which is all well and good if you're in the majority but if you're one of the very few it's a big deal. I believe it's very important to be an advocate for people for minorities who've asked for help.

Hmm not really. I've said that we're merely inconveniencing a very small minority and that there are clear alternatives - that's quite different to the picture you and OP were trying to portray.

Its perhaps also of note that its vulnerable minorities - the poor and disabled - who will suffer most and first once the consequences of environmental destruction set in. Failing to tackle environmental challenges is also failing to advocate for vulnerable minorities.

I also think the prescription straw idea is laughable. It would make access much much harder for people who already face significant barriers everywhere they go, and think how much it would cost the NHS per year!!! As well as the individuals. We've already seen through many examples that making something specialist/medical means that the price skyrockets. I could very easily see people who used to get a big box of straws for a pound that would last them ages, paying and £8 prescription fee for a smaller box that the NHS paid £12 for.

Its not laughable, its practical. Yes it could be a large box so no need for regular visits. People who are sufficiently disabled to not be able to lift a cup to their mouth are very commonly on a yearly prescription anyway, so actually this will cost them nothing. The number of patients who will need prescription straws will be tiny, so I can't see this costing the NHS much at all.

But that's not even the only way it could work. We could say restaurants and supermarkets are banned from providing them, but they are available for sale at licensed pharmacies. Or we could have a system similar to plastic bags where you can sell them but there is a minimum price (10p per straw or something). There are lots of ways it could work.