Looks like Georgia is gonna be Indiana'd

[DaveP]

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!

The first giveaway was that sealed, factory filled eliquid cartridges are exempt. That's generally big tobacco's product. I suppose they've engineered this into the minds of lawmakers in every state. "Ours is a clean, calibrated, sealed, and inspected mixture from the manufacturing lab to the customer and tampering will be evident if it occurs". The state usually has FDA type people in factories that produce products for human consumption.

I just hope that they allow Dekang and Hangsen to be certified. I'd really miss the clean taste of those. That's my daily vape.

My biggest gripe is that out of state liquids can't be sold in Ga. If Kentucky Bourbon was outlawed unless the plant was in Ga, lots of folks would raise a ruckus.

You can't even give away DIY or store bought e-liquid to another person without a license...

(b) A person shall not knowingly receive or acquire any e-liquid from a person that does602 not hold a valid license under this chapter

 

[chanelvaps]

I THINK it is refering to "for purpose of sale" only.
I hope so anyway.

that is exactly what I took from it and I read it (skimmed it) I think it is to prevent Joe Blow from mixing in his garage (and adding Kratom) and then selling it to the vape shop on the corner

 

[DaveP]

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.

I read it differently, but then I'm not a highly paid legal professional. What I derive from that legal description is that all of the previous conditions apply to the last clause e-liquid for purpose of sale. You can't sell it, give it away, or swap it for something else. You can use it yourself, though.

If I'm wrong, then only juice that's made in Georgia by state approved labs can be sold in stores in Ga. I read it to say that you can't order e-liquids from out of state and transfer ownership to another, but you can consume it yourself. That clause, IMO, is there to prevent any vape shop in Ga from selling juice that's not made under the rules set forth in the legislation. Lots of juice won't be available if it pertains to ordinary citizens who order it for personal consumption.

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.

 

[DaveP]

Georgia HB907 | 2015-2016 | Regular Session

The site above lists the bill's sponsors. I wanted to like every comment by readers on the page, but there's no LIKE icon there. It's just as we talked about. It's about protecting tobacco interests and the comments reveal similar thoughts that we have discussed in this thread.

I couldn't help but leave a comment there, too.

 

[Woofer]

I wanted to like every comment by readers on the page, but there's no LIKE icon there.

There is a Like hyperlink, you need to be signin to faceplant to use it.

 

[chanelvaps]

Georgia HB907 | 2015-2016 | Regular Session

The site above lists the bill's sponsors. I wanted to like every comment by readers on the page, but there's no LIKE icon there. It's just as we talked about. It's about protecting tobacco interests and the comments reveal similar thoughts that we have discussed in this thread.

I couldn't help but leave a comment there, too.

URGG Paulette Braddock/Rakestraw is from my county. I have argued with her in email correspondence regarding a trapping of raccoons. She voted to let it happen

 

[DaveP]

There is a Like hyperlink, you need to be signin to faceplant to use it.

I let the site sign me in using Facebook, but I didn't look for the like button.

The sponsors seem to portray the bill as "for the children". But, it's already illegal for those under 18 to use or purchase vaping gear, including e-juice. It was illegal to buy cigarettes when I was in high school, but the stores would gladly take your money and hand them over the counter.

Jack up fines for vendors who sell to children. Make it important that they follow the law and prohibitively expensive for those caught selling to minors. Money talks. It's obvious that this bill is more about revenue from BT than saving the children.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I let the site sign me in using Facebook, but I didn't look for the like button.

The sponsors seem to portray the bill as "for the children". But, it's already illegal for those under 18 to use or purchase vaping gear, including e-juice. It was illegal to buy cigarettes when I was in high school, but the stores would gladly take your money and hand them over the counter.

Jack up fines for vendors who sell to children. Make it important that they follow the law and prohibitively expensive for those caught selling to minors. Money talks. It's obvious that this bill is more about revenue from BT than saving the children.

Yep, that's how it started in FL last year. With the imperative of keeping ostensibly "nicotine" from getting into the hands of minors. They chalked it up in the "criminal" part of the code as req's for resellers. But…having no authority to issue such re-definition they equated tobacco with vaping. Then comes the legislature now with a new adjustment to re-define tobacco (after the fact) and call it a nicotine dispensing device. Problem in FL, that this definition after more than 5 years was set by the people in the form of a constitutional amendment. Three states redefining (FL, TN, VA) combustion, two states (IN, GA) going after the hardware. All effectively, a prohibition in some manner criminalizing individual behavior. All since the start of this year. Seems the goal line has been moved. No longer regulation but the outright ban…by whatever means. Next step for GA after the chillun, the takeaway.

So look there's no end to the extent that politicians are willing to stretch, .......ize, dilute, expand the language, the law and their authority with respect to anything today. I don't care where you look. There is no law but their law, that of the new lawgivers. First they seize the authority under some pretense somewhere in the code, illegally overwriting or distorting statuary limits set legitimately elsewhere then to rest on that presumptive authority. A complete convolution of the rule of law.

Forget the labels and fight for our vape, for our individual rights, I say.

Good luck all.

 

[DaveP]

Yep, that's how it started in FL last year. With the imperative of keeping ostensibly "nicotine" from getting into the hands of minors. They chalked it up in the "criminal" part of the code as req's for resellers. But…having no authority to issue such re-definition they equated tobacco with vaping. Then comes the legislature now with a new adjustment to re-define tobacco (after the fact) and call it a nicotine dispensing device. Problem in FL, that this definition after more than 5 years was set by the people in the form of a constitutional amendment. Three states redefining (FL, TN, VA) combustion, two states (IN, GA) going after the hardware. All effectively, a prohibition in some manner criminalizing individual behavior. All since the start of this year. Seems the goal line has been moved. No longer regulation but the outright ban…by whatever means. Next step for GA after the chillun, the takeaway.

So look there's no end to the extent that politicians are willing to stretch, .......ize, dilute, expand the language, the law and their authority with respect to anything today. I don't care where you look. There is no law but their law, that of the new lawgivers. First they seize the authority under some pretense somewhere in the code, illegally overwriting or distorting statuary limits set legitimately elsewhere then to rest on that presumptive authority. A complete convolution of the rule of law.

Forget the labels and fight for our vape, for our individual rights, I say.

Good luck all.

I suggest that they do away with smoking altogether if they are going to outlaw the things that can prevent people from even wanting cigarettes in the first place.

We all know that it's about creating revenue to fund big tobacco and enable them to keep making the payments under the tobacco settlement.

A number of states borrowed money so that they could get the entire amount using the tobacco settlement as collateral to pay the payments. Now, they are hooked on tobacco in the financial sense. Isn't that ironic!

How Wall Street Tobacco Deals Left States With Billions in Toxic Debt

Under the deals, the debts must be repaid with settlement money and not tax dollars. Still, taxpayers lose out when tobacco income that could be spent on other government services is diverted to paying off CABs. And states can’t simply walk away from the debt — bondholders have a right to further tobacco payments even after a default.

 

[skoony]

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.

I have been reading this over and over. As i read it everything between the semicolons
stands alone in and of itself and as a whole any of the parts in any combination.
Two key elements in my interpretation. Give away; and, or possess any e-liquid
for sale. It doesn't say manufacture for sale; or, ship for sale; or recieve for 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.
This clearly means a DIY'er or unlicensed seller.
How do they define a person as opposed to a business? One could interpret this to
mean its only meant for business. Then again it could be both.

Regards
Mike

 

[DaveP]

1-28-04 How Georgia Is Spending Tobacco Settlement Funds

How the government is spending the $06 billion tobacco suit settlement
By Shelley Davis
LAWRENCEVILLE

Georgia, like most states, got an F from the American Lung Association for the amount of money it shells out for funding anti-smoking programs. The grade wasn't surprising - the state has never spent the recommended amount of national tobacco settlement money on smoking prevention. Instead, Georgia spends most of the money on rural economic development and health care programs not related to smoking cessation.

Further, a Gwinnett Daily Post investigation into how the tobacco money is divvied up found less than half the money sent to anti-smoking programs is spent directly on anti-smoking measures. The remainder of the money is paid for salaries, travel expenses, equipment and other administrative costs.

 

[zoiDman]

I have been reading this over and over. As i read it everything between the semicolons
stands alone in and of itself and as a whole any of the parts in any combination.
Two key elements in my interpretation. Give away; and, or possess any e-liquid
for sale. It doesn't say manufacture for sale; or, ship for sale; or recieve for 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.
This clearly means a DIY'er or unlicensed seller.
How do they define a person as opposed to a business? One could interpret this to
mean its only meant for business. Then again it could be both.

Regards
Mike

For the Bill's "Definitions" Section(s)...


41 (6)(8) 'Person' means any natural person or any firm, partnership, company, corporation
42 or other entity.
...

91 (7) 'Distribute' means to sell, barter, or exchange e-liquid to retain dealers in this state
92 for the purpose of resale or to purchase e-liquid directly from a person that manufactures
93 e-liquid for the purpose of resale.
...

110 (17) 'Manufacture' means the process by which an e-liquid is mixed, bottled, packaged,
111 and stored for introduction into commerce.
112 (18) 'Manufacturer' means a person located inside or outside the State of Georgia that is
113 engaged in manufacturing in this state.
114 (19) 'Manufacturing facility' means any building, plant, factory, warehouse,
115 establishment, or other premises in this state at which any manufacturing, distributing,
116 or retailing is conducted.
117 (20) 'Person' means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other entity.
118 (21) 'Retail' means to acquire any form of e-liquid for the purpose of resale or to transfer
119 e-liquid to another person for money or other consideration.

 

[VNeil]

Aren't Georgia's smoking laws less strict than just about any other state? Sounds like they're trying to make vaping much more restricted and punishable than smoking.

DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

 

[skoony]

@zoiDman Thanks. As i read that it means a person as a noncommercial
entity.
Interesting.
Mike

 

[VNeil]

For those arguing about the meaning of semicolons, or suggesting that OR does not mean OR... here is how laws are really put on the books and enforced....

1. A bill is introduced, and regardless of the wording, arguments are made that the bill has some specific intent that is being misinterpreted by those objecting to it. Lots of talk about the spirit of the law.

2. The bill is passed

3. Everyone (mainly the TPTB) instantly forgets about that "spirit of the law"

4. The bill is then interpreted pretty much however TPTB want to, and in that case OR really means OR and etc.

5. If you, the citizen, don't like that interpretation, gather up about $10 Million to take TPTB all the way through the local legal system, including the appeal systems, to the supreme court. And IF you can even get your case heard (no guarantees the Supreme Court will even grant Certiori), and if you win, maybe justice will prevail. otherwise, you can go pound sand.

So I wish the good citizens of Georgia luck raising their $10 million or whatever it costs these days to enforce the spirit of the law, and I'm not even sure the spirit of the law is embodied in the Constitution... it is pretty obvious to me that that bill, as written, is constructed to mean whatever they want it to mean, whenever they care to do so. It could, for example, be initially applied to manufacturers, and at any time in the future be applied to DIY.

114 (19) 'Manufacturing facility' means any building, plant, factory, warehouse,
115 establishment, or other premises in this state at which any manufacturing, distributing,
116 or retailing is conducted.

Did anyone else notice that a vape shop who buys pre-made eLiquid wholesale for retail resale (does not engage in making or mixing of juice) will be considered a manufacturer? And seriously, I am confident that the US Supreme Court will define OR as meaning exactly that... OR. They might knock it down for some other reason, but not because OR does not mean OR.

There was also no mention here about the same 24 hour video surveillance required in these manufacturing facilities. That supposedly was virtually impossible to comply with in Indiana. And because of the definition I quoted above, it seems to me that every retail vape shop will similarly have to comply with that 24 hr video surveillance.

 

[zoiDman]

@zoiDman Thanks. As i read that it means a person as a noncommercial
entity.
Interesting.
Mike

In the Context of this Bill, a "Person" could be a Non-Commercial Entity. But is Not Restrictive to Only a Non-Commercial Entity.

 

[skoony]

@zoiDman Agreed. Did you notice they went on to mention commercial
entities in the sentence anyway. That makes intent crystal clear I think.
Regards
Mike

 

[MacTechVpr]

I have been reading this over and over. As i read it everything between the semicolons
stands alone in and of itself and as a whole any of the parts in any combination.
Two key elements in my interpretation. Give away; and, or possess any e-liquid
for sale. It doesn't say manufacture for sale; or, ship for sale; or recieve for 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.
This clearly means a DIY'er or unlicensed seller.
How do they define a person as opposed to a business? One could interpret this to
mean its only meant for business. Then again it could be both.

Regards
Mike

It criminalizes the buyer. Baad, very bad vaper.

They're projecting their intention to fleece you. Ya see, it's their money (and power) already; and, you're trying to take it from them.

I'm often led to ponder if maybe I'm just wrong and they're right. We should have government subsidy…the underwriting of long term therapy and appropriate shelter for all these beleaguered anti-socials. Mebe, they need a real outlet to do so most effectively. So if we bunch 'em all up…well, they can have all the practice they want, ruling each other. Let's let the Chinese build a new land mass big enough. They've already got a head start building unoccupied spaces. Go ahead someone, write up the petition.

G'luck.

 

[zoiDman]

@zoiDman Agreed. Did you notice they went on to mention commercial
entities in the sentence anyway. That makes intent crystal clear I think.
Regards
Mike

It just kinda Throws a net down over Anyone and Anything.

 

[Lessifer]

1-28-04 How Georgia Is Spending Tobacco Settlement Funds

So the ALA gave GA an F for not giving them what they think is their proper cut of the MSA money?

Why does any of that money go towards cessation or prevention programs? Wasn't the actual settlement supposed to be about helping the states pay for the medical expenses of smokers?