A state lawmaker in the final weeks of his final term in the Michigan House of Representatives has introduced bills that would restrict the distribution of single-use plastic items in restaurants, including drinking straws. California is currently the only state that has enacted such a ban.

House Bill 6504, introduced by third-term Democratic Rep. Tom Cochran from Mason, would ban single-use plastic items from being sold or offered after December 2023. These single-use plastic items include cotton swabs, cutlery, plates, straws and drink stirrers. The ban would not go into effect unless a “sustainable alternative” that is biodegradable is found.

House Bill 6505 would impose a civil infraction of up to $300 per year on a restaurant that offers a single-use plastic straw to a customer who did not request it.

Cochran said he hopes the introduction of his bills will start a conversation on the potential harm of single-use plastics. He pointed to moves by Aldi and other grocery stores working to provide alternatives to plastic bags as examples of ways businesses could move away from using single-use plastic items.

“I guarantee my bills are not going to get a hearing or any movement. ... I felt very strongly that I wanted to make a statement and hopefully move the conversation forward and I’m working with my colleagues to hopefully get the issue taken up in the future,” Cochran said. “We’re not going to be without plastics, but I think we need to be very aware of the impact single-use plastics have and try to limit their use and the impact they have on our environment.”

In July 2018, the city of Seattle made headlines when it banned single-use plastic straws and utensils at food service establishments. In September, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation limiting full-service restaurants, but not fast-food establishments, from giving out single-use plastic straws unless requested by the customer.

Cochran said that while the idea for his legislation was his own, his bill mirrors the California law as well as the Seattle ordinance.

The Mason representative said residents of the state’s communities would have to make sure neighbors were aware of the new single-use rule if his legislation were enacted. Enforcement of House Bill 6505 would fall on an employee of the Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, or a local health officer.

Charles Owens, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, called the legislation ridiculous.

“It just shows they truly have run out of things to regulate,” Owens said.

Gail Philbin, the state director of the Michigan chapter of the Sierra Club, did not respond to an email and a phone call requesting comment on the bills. Justin Winslow, president and CEO of the Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association did not respond to phone and emailed requests for comment.

Every week in Michigan, people buy millions of state lottery tickets. Rep. Beau LaFave wants to bring the legal form of gambling into a new setting — the workplace — and has introduced House Bill 6527 to do just that. If passed, the bill would authorize employers to withhold money from workers’ paychecks, with the money used “to hold a lottery,” in a form that the state lottery agency would devise.

Employees working for participating employers could choose to check a lottery withholding box, which would cause $26 to be withheld from their earnings each year and deposited into a new weekly payroll lottery.

“The thought process behind this particular game,” LaFave told Michigan Capitol Confidential, “is that you kind of have to go out of your way to play these games right now. If you make it easier to play these games, I think the majority of people would check the box to play.”

The Republican from Iron Mountain says the lottery revenue could help schools while stimulating the economy. Using ballpark figures, he said “If half (of workers) check the box (that’s) $100 millionish, half prizes, (and) half goes directly to the School Aid Fund. Then, further divide it down, that would be about a million dollars a week in prizes and a million dollars a week in the schools.”

With top prizes expected to be around $10,000, “Winnings are low, so nobody is quitting their jobs over it,” LaFave said.

LaFave did not address the economic impact of employees losing money, given that only 60 percent of lottery revenue is paid out in prizes.

LaFave said he got the idea years ago when considering how to bring the lottery to more people. “From a freedom perspective, which is how I look at everything, if people want to play the game, why not let them?”

Dean Stansel, an associate professor at Southern Methodist University, said government programs such as a lottery seldom are analyzed by what they cost in comparison to the benefits they provide.

“The idea that any government program is going to 'stimulate the economy' is based on the common error of only looking at one side of the ledger,” Stansel said in an email. “While there may be some measurable benefits from any particular government program, those have to be measured against the costs: what taxpayers would have done with that money if they’d been allowed to keep it. If you ignore that cost, any use of taxpayer funds seems beneficial, which of course it isn’t.”

J. Scott Moody, CEO of the Granite Institute think tank in New Hampshire, said that studies have shown that a lottery is a very regressive tax that puts a heavier burden on poorer taxpayers.

“This leads to conflicting and self-defeating policy such as providing help to the poor through schemes such as the earned income tax credit while at the same time burdening them through regressive taxation such as the lottery,” Moody said in an email. “This bill would do nothing to stimulate the economy. A person choosing to spend money on the lottery simply means they have less money to buy milk or gas.”

Leon Drolet, chairman of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, found the bill to be incredible. If the state was going authorize payroll withholding for something, Drolet wondered, why the lottery? he said.

“They don’t offer that for food or housing or any other product, so to suggest they do it for (a lottery) seems extremely bizarre.”

He continued, “It’s interesting that the state wants to facilitate purchasing such a colossal waste of money. Basically facilitating the worker becoming poorer at the benefit of the state.”