> Is not having a straw really the struggle people make it out to be?

Counterpoint: are straws really the problem? Last I checked they were a fraction of a percent of total plastic, whereas things like fishing nets made up slightly under 50% of total plastic. Haven't seen anyone forego seafood or demand seafood caught without the use of plastics though.

True and not true. By itself, reducing straw use has negligible effects. It's whether it would lead to a change in behaviour (better management of use of plastic) that's key, I think.

It's covered as one of the FAQ questions [1]

[A]re straws a big deal? Not really. It's estimated that if all straws around the world's coastlines were lost to the ocean, this would account for approximately 0.03 percent of ocean plastics. A global ban on their use could therefore achieve a maximum of a 0.03 percent reduction. Why have straws in particular received so much attention? Probably because: (a) for most people (not all — some people struggle to drink without one), straws are unnecessary; and (b) it's a quick and low-risk step for businesses to be seen to be taking active steps in addressing this issue.

Reducing plastic straw use is — for the most part — not a bad thing to do. It can reduce plastic use a little. If this is a first step towards large-scale commitments to tackling plastic consumption, then it's a useful contribution. But as the late David MacKay noted: “If we all do a little, we’ll only achieve a little”. We must do a lot; we must tackle the high-impact options that will make a difference at the global level.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/faq-on-plastics#are-plastic-straw...

So basically, the straw ban is not really doing anything else to help with plastics in the ocean. In return, it has turned into a meme among some political groups how the environmentalists are trying to micromanage our behavior.