February 2011
#11-07
Summary:
In the debate over banning
single-use plastic bags,
whether or not government
has the right to ban a
product and to force
retailers to charge a
government-created price
is an important question to
consider, and it has
significant implications for
government involvement
in Oregonians’ lives.
Word Count 555
“If SB 536 passes,
Oregonians…would
be allowing
government to force
retail stores to redo
their business model
and set prices for a
product. This sets up a
precarious precedent
that government can
have the right to
impose prices on every
product it deems
harmful to society.”
The Proper Role of Government:
Banning Bags and Setting Prices?
By Todd Wynn
One of the most controversial debates in Oregon’s state capitol this year is banning
single-use bags, Senate Bill 536. There is something more important to add to the
debate than just the rhetoric from environmental activists, politicians, paper
companies and grocery stores. The question of whether government has the right to
ban a product and to force retailers to charge a government-created price is an
important one to consider, and it has significant implications for government
involvement in Oregonians’ lives.
In addition to an outright ban on plastic bags, SB 536 forces retail stores to charge
shoppers wanting a paper bag a minimum price set by the government. Currently,
for convenience and ease at checkout, stores usually offer “free” bags to shoppers
but embed the cost of these bags into the price of other products purchased at the
store. SB 536 advocates want to attach a direct price to the single-use bags in order
to reduce consumption.
In this case, the Oregon government would impose a minimum price of five cents
per paper bag. It is interesting to note that there has been little political backlash
regarding this escalating power of government. Since when have Oregonians
thought that it was the “right” of government to set prices on products or not to
allow stores to embed the price of a product into the overall cost of doing business?
Businesses embed prices all the time. Grocery carts, coffee cups, fast food
packaging are all examples of embedded prices. Shoppers are not charged for their
usage directly but pay for them through higher prices on food or coffee. If SB 536
passes, Oregonians essentially would be allowing government to force retail stores
to redo their business model and set prices for a product. This sets up a precarious
precedent that government can have the right to impose prices on every product it
deems harmful to society.
This also would mean government has the right to impose maximum prices for
products as long as politicians argue that it would be for the common good. This is
eerily comparable to price controls in Cuba and the former Soviet Union, and we all
know how well that works out. Although on the surface the government-imposed
price on paper bags looks fairly harmless, it is truly a dangerous overreach of
government.
What about the outright ban? This is an equally destructive and dangerous
encroachment of government. Many reasons cited for the ban are questionable
environmental claims, but advocates also claim that this would be a job stimulus
program for the state because of Oregon’s paper industry. Even though those claims
have been found to be false and there would actually be a net job loss, there is a
more important underlying issue.
If we allow government to ban a product because some politicians deem it bad for
society or, in this case, good for job growth, what is next? Government could have
the right to ban all fruit not grown in Oregon or all cars not manufactured in the
state.
If Senate Bill 536 passes, Oregonians are setting a standard that our rights can be
trampled on. Giving the government the right to force you not to purchase a product
and to control prices is much scarier than the existence of plastic bags, contrary to
what some environmental activists may believe.
Todd Wynn is Vice President at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public
policy research organization. He was formerly Climate Change and Energy Policy
Analyst at Cascade.
“If we allow
government to ban
a product because
some politicians
deem it bad for
society or, in this
case, good for job
growth, what is
next? Government
could have the
right to ban all
fruit not grown in
Oregon or all cars
not manufactured
in the state.”
Attention editors
and producers:
Cascade Commentaries are
provided for reprint in
newspapers and other
publications, with credit
given to author(s) and
Cascade. Contact Cascade
to arrange print or broadcast
interviews on this
commentary topic.
Please contact:
Cascade Policy Institute
4850 SW Scholls Ferry Rd.
Suite 103
Portland, Oregon 97225
Phone: (503) 242-0900
Fax: (503) 242-3822
Cascade Policy Institute is a tax-exempt educational organization as defined under IRS code 501 (c)(3). Nothing
appearing in this Cascade Commentary is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of Cascade or its
donors. The views expressed herein are the author’s own.
www.cascadepolicy.org
[email protected]