Chances are, you’ve gone grocery shopping recently. As a result, you probably know that while many grocery stores have switched to reusable bags – you know, those weird cloth ones – many still offer plastic bags free of charge. However, this may soon change, as a result of Proposition 67.

Proposition 67 – formally known as the Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum – is yet another topic on the Nov. 8 ballot. A “yes” vote on Prop. 67 is in favor of upholding Senate Bill 270, legislation that would not only prohibit certain stores from providing single-use plastic carryout bags, but also require a charge of at least 10 cents for other carryout bags. On the other hand, a “no” vote is in favor of overturning SB 270.

“So what?” you may ask. “Who cares about plastic bags? There’s plenty of more interesting and controversial topics on the ballot, like the legalization of marijuana.”

I know. It’s hard to have a strong opinion on plastic bags. But if it were passed, SB 270’s plastic bag fees would be equivalent to a $300 million tax increase. That’s a pretty big deal.

I encourage you to consider the ramifications of Proposition 67, which, as many things do, sounds good at first but really isn’t in the end.

You might be thinking that the environment would be better off without single-use plastic bags. And I agree that the bags harm wildlife every day. We’ve all seen it happen – you’re chilling at the beach, taking selfies, eating some high-calorie snack with little-to-no nutritional value. Then the winds kicks up, blowing away the plastic wrapper. Some unfortunate seagull swoops down, grabs it and flies off. The harmless-looking piece of trash can eventually kill the bird, as well as sea turtles, seals and fish that also get tangled in plastic on the beach or in the ocean. If animals eat it, thinking it’s food, they could potentially choke on it or starve. Because, yeah, the plastic has even less nutritional value than the Fritos you ate.

So if we get rid of plastic bags, and charge a fee for paper or reusable bags, we can save all of these poor animals, and the planet itself, right?

Wrong. Not one penny of the resulting $300 million would help protect the environment. Rather, big grocery store chains would keep all the revenue, and grocers will grow $300 million richer on the backs of consumers. The environment doesn’t factor into the equation at all.

Plastic bags aren’t the problem – people are. Hundreds of tons of plastic wouldn’t end up in our rivers, lakes and oceans if people weren’t so negligent. So we shouldn’t criminalize the bags; a wrapped sheet of high density polyethylene isn’t inherently bad. It’s what we actually do with the bag that warrants concern.

Rather than taxing customers on carryout bags, we need to better educate citizens about protecting the environment: not littering, but instead recycling, reducing and reusing. We need more than one catchy rhyme that was sung in the fifth grade to remind us to take care of our environment.

It may be better for the environment to ask the cashier for a paper bag the next time you go grocery shopping. But that doesn’t mean you should no longer have a choice in the matter. So vote “no” on Proposition 67, and stop blaming a mere object for pure human misconduct.