Looks like Georgia is gonna be Indiana'd

[pennysmalls]

Hey there, Mr. Godshall! I sure hope they win! I think if we can take this on with a few states, one at a time, it could help prevent other states from attempting to put this kind of nonsense on their books.

A while back, our then-Governor Jennifer Granholm, who was HEAVILY lobbied and campaign funded by in state Liquor, Beer and Wine wholesalers, pushed through a law banning residents from purchasing alcoholic beverages from out of state wineries and retailers. She dragged the issue all the way to the Supreme Court of the U.S., on the taxpayers dime!

Since there was NO SUCH law on our books banning OUR wineries and retailers from selling OUT of state, the Supreme's ruled it a violation of the commerce clause. Point being, all other states who had or were considering similar laws, abandoned them QUICK.

That gives me a lot of hope because that's what Indiana is trying to do with eliquid. I don't remember anything in any of the Indiana bills about Indiana vendors not being able to sell to out of state purchasers. I don't think Indiana's eliquid permit for out of state vendors is going to pass the smell test, I never thought it would.

 

[salemgold]

Please paste where it says sale. All I see are a lot of "or"s ... Which means letter of the law is not specific to sales.

It says so right after the part that you highlighted in your last post

597 26-3A-26.
598 (a) Except as otherwise permitted by this chapter, a person shall not purchase; receive;
599 manufacture; import; transport; cause to be imported or transported from another state,
600 territory, or country into this state; ship; barter; give away; exchange; furnish; otherwise
601 handle or dispose of; or possess any e-liquid for purpose of sale.
602 (b) A person shall not knowingly receive or acquire any e-liquid from a person that does
603 not hold a valid license under this chapter.
604 (c) Any person that violates this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; provided,
605 however, that upon a second or subsequent violation of this Code section, such person shall
606 be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

 

[ckquatt]

This isn't going to go well for us I don't think. I'll be making a few extra large purchases of nic base here in the next week or so in case this abortion of a bill passes. I read it about an hour ago and got sick to my stomach.

I'm going to let it process for the night and start sending out emails and such this weekend.

Oh not only is HHV in Georgia but Good Life Vapor and epipemods as well...


Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk

 

[DaveP]

I scanned the bill while ago and it appears to legislate manufacture and sale of e-juice pretty heavily. The summary makes it illegal for minors to possess and/or use e-juice. It talks about clean room environments and mandatory licensing and testing of products that contain nicotine for e-cigs. I have to wonder if it's designed to crack down on those who might be selling juice containing illegal substances on the black market.

I'll have to go back and look at it more closely.

 

[LouisLeBeau]

That gives me a lot of hope because that's what Indiana is trying to do with eliquid. I don't remember anything in any of the Indiana bills about Indiana vendors not being able to sell to out of state purchasers. I don't think Indiana's eliquid permit for out of state vendors is going to pass the smell test, I never thought it would.

It was a very interesting case, and the parallels are definitely there. As an avid wine collector, I was definitely an "interested party" and know the Michigan husband and wife collectors who initiated the challenge.

Under the 21st amendment, states were granted the right to fully control sales of alcohol. This was partly due to the fact that after prohibition, some areas of the country wanted to remain "dry". It was also intended to allow the states to be able to limit access to minors.

The commerce clause, on the other hand, forbids states from enacting laws that unfairly limit commerce between states, in favor of their own in state businesses. Both make very good sense, but in this case, were conflicting.

Gov. Granholm, shameless shill, went so far when she was our AG, as to order liquor from a Chicago retailer, have it shipped UPS or Fedex, and intentionally had a minor receive the shipment. Whereupon Fedex and UPS were promptly served a C&D by the state. Save the Children! Sound familiar?

The Supremes are Supremes for a reason. They try to look beyond BS. In their ruling, they pretty much stated that it was obvious that Michigan's use of the 21st amendment in writing the law being challenged, was NOT about temperance, or access to minors since minors could also order and receive theoretically from IN state, so then it could only be for the purpose of limiting sales from other states, in favor of in state suppliers. Boom. Pack yer bags, Lady. You're going HOME.

Fedex and UPS were quick to set up protocols that any alcohol shipments MUST be signed for by an adult, and the rest is the Golden History of Michigan wine lovers!

 

[Robert Cromwell]

So just make for your own consumption?

 

[Robert Cromwell]

It was a very interesting case, and the parallels are definitely there. As an avid wine collector, I was definitely an "interested party" and know the Michigan husband and wife collectors who initiated the challenge.

Under the 21st amendment, states were granted the right to fully control sales of alcohol. This was partly due to the fact that after prohibition, some areas of the country wanted to remain "dry". It was also intended to allow the states to be able to limit access to minors.

The commerce clause, on the other hand, forbids states from enacting laws that unfairly limit commerce between states, in favor of their own in state businesses. Both make very good sense, but in this case, were conflicting.

Gov. Granholm, shameless shill, went so far when she was our AG, as to order liquor from a Chicago retailer, have it shipped UPS or Fedex, and intentionally had a minor receive the shipment. Whereupon Fedex and UPS were promptly served a C&D by the state. Save the Children! Sound familiar?

The Supremes are Supremes for a reason. They try to look beyond BS. In their ruling, they pretty much stated that it was obvious that Michigan's use of the 21st amendment in writing the law being challenged, was NOT about temperance, or access to minors since minors could also order and receive theoretically from IN state, so then it could only be for the purpose of limiting sales from other states, in favor of in state suppliers. Boom. Pack yer bags, Lady. You're going HOME.

Fedex and UPS were quick to set up protocols that any alcohol shipments MUST be signed for by an adult, and the rest is the Golden History of Michigan wine lovers!

If he had a minor intentionally recieve the liquor he is guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

 

[DaveP]

Oh well, I've proved I can vape 0 nic without going nuts for nic. It's just that it's no fun without a touch of nic bitterness in the vape. Even at 3mg/ml I can detect the presence of nic.

 

[LouisLeBeau]

If he had a minor intentionally recieve the liquor he is guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Oh, believe me, that point was NOT lost on her opponents. Way to show the kids how to do it, Jenni! Would have NEVER occurred to them that they COULD order booze from other states. Of course, the whole getting a hold of a credit card, using it, and not being caught issues showed the ruse for the red herring it was.

 

[nicnik]

So just make for your own consumption?

Looking at it again, I think you're right. For purposes of sale. But what does "dispose of any e-liquid for purposes of sale" mean?

600 territory, or country into this state; ship; barter; give away; exchange; furnish; otherwise
601 handle or dispose of; or possess any e-liquid for purpose of sale.

 

[retired1]

If he had a minor intentionally recieve the liquor he is guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Not necessarily. For law enforcement purposes, they can and do use minors to test businesses. They've been doing this for years in bars and convenience stores for alcohol and tobacco sales.

 

[DaveP]

Looking at it again, I think you're right. For purposes of sale. But what does "dispose of any e-liquid for purposes of sale" mean?

Dispose in this case means to give, sell, or transfer ownership or control to another, IMO. When you look at legal proceedings dispose is used to state what happens to the material or products in the agreement.

Most of what I vape I order from Madvapes in NC. I read the text of the proposed law as saying that I can order it from out of state for my own personal use, but not for sale to others unless I'm licensed by the state to sell e-juice.

If I MAKE juice for sale I have to have a license to do that and it must be done in an approved lab with a clean room environment that is inspected and approved by the state. All my chemicals must also be labeled as FDA tested and approved.

So far it looks like more regulation for vape shops, but ensures that what we buy is tested and approved by state agencies. Juice prices will go up by some amount to offset the cost of compliance, but we'll finally know that there's no antifreeze in our juice.

 

[DaveP]

18 (1) 'Alternative nicotine product' means any noncombustible product containing nicotine19 that is intended for human consumption, whether chewed, absorbed, dissolved, or20 ingested by any other means. The term 'alternative nicotine product' shall not include any21 tobacco product, vapor product, or any product regulated as a drug or device by the22 United States Food and Drug Administration under Chapter V of the Food, Drug, and23 Cosmetic Act

So, does that mean that since electronic cigarettes are deemed to be tobacco products in the 2010 court decision (rather than medical devices) that they are exempt from the legislation?

But, apparently the manufacture of e-juice is a separate issue.

 

[retired1]

So, does that mean that since electronic cigarettes are deemed to be tobacco products (rather than medical devices) that they are exempt from the legislation?

But, apparently the manufacture of e-juice is a separate issue.

No, what that clause does is exempt the existing and future "medical" NRT items. In other words, pharmacies are getting a huge pass on that one.

 

[DaveP]

No, what that clause does is exempt the existing and future "medical" NRT items. In other words, pharmacies are getting a huge pass on that one.

I agree. They are leaving sealed cartridges alone.

26-3A-33.656 Nothing in this chapter shall be applicable to the mixing, bottling, packaging, storage, or657 sale of sealed nonrefillable cartridges of e-liquids intended to be vaporized and inhaled658 using a powered vaporizer.

The interesting part to me is that they seem to be allowing interstate importation of e-liquids for personal use, but not for sale. That in itself requires Georgia e-liquid sellers to procure liquids from approved manufacturing labs inside the state, while allowing end users to import e-liquids for their own use from other states.

194 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to mix, bottle, package, or sell e-liquid in this state195 without having first obtained a manufacturing license from the Commissioner

OTOH, the bill allows individuals to order juice from another state as long as it's not for sale to to others.

597 (a) Except as otherwise permitted by this chapter, a person shall not purchase; receive;598 manufacture; import; transport; cause to be imported or transported from another state,599 territory, or country into this state; ship; barter; give away; exchange; furnish; otherwise600 handle or dispose of; or possess any e-liquid for purpose of sale

 

[squee]

The interesting part to me is that they seem to be allowing interstate importation of e-liquids for personal use, but not for sale. That in itself requires Georgia e-liquid sellers to procure liquids from approved manufacturing labs inside the state, while allowing end users to import e-liquids for their own use from other states.

OTOH, the bill allows individuals to order juice from another state as long as it's not for sale to to others.

No, they're not allowing that:

602 (b) A person shall not knowingly receive or acquire any e-liquid from a person that does
603 not hold a valid license under this chapter.

 

[nicnik]

Dispose in this case means to give, sell, or transfer ownership or control to another, IMO. When you look at legal proceedings dispose is used to state what happens to the material or products in the agreement.

Thanks. Sounds right. So all of it's for purpose of sale.

 

[zoiDman]

I think when the Ramifications of a wordings Interpretation is this Significant, I would want an Attorney to review this Entire Bill.

 

[Jingles]

From an outsider (Ohioan) looking in , it is obvious that the tobacco companies are trying to legislate away their competition. It looks like Coca-Cola trying to make laws against Pepsi. Or from the past, buggy makers trying to stifle Ford Motor Company! We have people dying on the streets from illegal drugs everyday and they are worried about nicotine? We have several years, almost a decade, of people making and selling and trading ejuices and how many hospital reports of injuries? I would guess very few. It's also like they are saying you can't make a cake for your neighbor. Who knows what you would put in it? You must only buy state approved cake from the state bakery! I think this a microcosm of why Americans are getting fed up in this country! They are infringing on our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness!

 

[DaveP]

I stopped at the local vape shop today to buy some titanium wire and had a chat with one of the owners. They are still looking at the text and didn't really have a handle on the details. There will be haggling and negotiations before the bill becomes law. What's passed will hopefully look much different than the present draft when the discussions are over and the lawyers have had their say with the general assembly, I suppose.