Looks like Georgia is gonna be Indiana'd

[squee]

Text of bill here -> http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/156437.pdf

And it's a doozy! There's some stuff in there I don't even recall seeing in the IN one.

Summary from Legiscan:

GA HB907 | 2015-2016 | Regular Session

Georgia House Bill 907
Status
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 6-0)
Status: Introduced on February 3 2016 - 25% progression

Summary
A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Article 7 of Chapter 12 of Title 16 and Title 26 of the O.C.G.A., relating to sale or distribution to, or possession by, minors of cigarettes and tobacco related objects and food, drugs, and cosmetics, respectively, so as to safeguard public health, safety, and welfare by controlling and regulating the manufacture, production, distribution, and sale of e-liquids and vapor pens; to provide for applicability; to provide for related matters; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

Title
Crimes and offenses; tobacco related products; safeguard public health by controlling and regulating sale of e-liquids and vapor pens

Sponsors
Rep. Paulette Braddock [R] Rep. Howard Maxwell [R] Rep. Tom McCall [R] Rep. Bill Hitchens [R] Rep. Amy Carter [R] Rep. James Shaw [R]

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Nanny state Republicans?

 

[nicnik]

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Republican 6-0)

Sounds like either they made no effort to have any Democrats co-sponsor, or the revolt against vape-hate will begin in Georgia... ... led by Democrats. I know which is more likely.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Republicans are NOT against regulations.
Just not quite as FOR them as Democrats are.

both are bought by big money.

 

[squee]

Sounds like either they made no effort to have any Democrats co-sponsor, or the revolt against vape-hate will begin in Georgia... ... led by Democrats. I know which is more likely.

Republicans control the house 118-60, control the Senate 39-17 and have the Governorship. I suppose some Dems could say something one way or the other but in GA, it's completely irrelevant.

 

[OldBatty]

Do not recognize any of the sponsors, but if one happens to to be in my district I will be voting against them!

 

[nicnik]

Republicans control the house 118-60, control the Senate 39-17 and have the Governorship. I suppose some Dems could say something one way or the other but in GA, it's completely irrelevant.

So it's gonna go whichever way the Republicans want it to.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Do not recognize any of the sponsors, but if one happens to to be in my district I will be voting against them!

also vote against the ones who vote for it not just the sponsors.

 

[Bill Godshall]

This bill looks very similar to the one enacted in Indiana.
What isn't clear is what companies and/or groups are behind the GA bill.

Last week, the Right to Be Smoke-Free Coalition filed 56 pages of Motions for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions and Summary Judgement in the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana arguing that Indiana’s crony capitalist law (banning sales of vapor products made by virtually all e-liquid manufacturers) violates the US and Indiana Constitutions.

 

[curiousJan]

Yikes, if I'm reading this correctly, it outlaws DIY ...

"26-3A-6.
195 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to mix, bottle, package, or sell e-liquid in this state
196 without having first obtained a manufacturing license from the Commissioner."

 

[pennysmalls]

I think states outside of Indiana would be wise to hold off and see what happens here first. With what looks like two different groups pursuing this through legal channels in Indiana you'd think other states would be watching to see what happens here so they'd know what they may and may not get away with as far as legislation goes.

 

[Lessifer]

I think states outside of Indiana would be wise to hold off and see what happens here first. With what looks like two different groups pursuing this through legal channels in Indiana you'd think other states would be watching to see what happens here so they'd know what they may and may not get away with as far as legislation goes.

You're much too rational.

 

[retired1]

Yikes, if I'm reading this correctly, it outlaws DIY ...

"26-3A-6.
195 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to mix, bottle, package, or sell e-liquid in this state
196 without having first obtained a manufacturing license from the Commissioner."

That section deals with business, not personal DIY.

 

[pennysmalls]

You're much too rational.

That's what my sis always tells me.

 

[curiousJan]

That section deals with business, not personal DIY.

Nowhere does it confine the verbiage to business. The section header is as follows:

"SECTION 2.
75 Title 26 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to food, drugs, and cosmetics,
76 is amended by adding a new chapter to read as follows:"

People may state that it is to pertain to businesses, but the 'letter of the law' does not constrain itself as far as I can tell.

 

[nicnik]

This bill looks very similar to the one enacted in Indiana.
What isn't clear is what companies and/or groups are behind the GA bill.

Last week, the Right to Be Smoke-Free Coalition filed 56 pages of Motions for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions and Summary Judgement in the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana arguing that Indiana’s crony capitalist law (banning sales of vapor products made by virtually all e-liquid manufacturers) violates the US and Indiana Constitutions.

This more than makes up for the bad news about Illinois. Thanks!

 

[DC2]

You're much too rational.

Wait, what? Is that a "thing" now?

 

[retired1]

Nowhere does it confine the verbiage to business. The section header is as follows:

"SECTION 2.
75 Title 26 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to food, drugs, and cosmetics,
76 is amended by adding a new chapter to read as follows:"

People may state that it is to pertain to businesses, but the 'letter of the law' does not constrain itself as far as I can tell.

You have to look at the original code, not the amendment.

 

[nicnik]

Wait, what? Is that a "thing" now?

Is it a disqualifier for TC employment?

 

[curiousJan]

This more than makes up for the bad news about Illinois. Thanks!

Do you mean the bad news about Chicago? Or the recent addition of possession-penalties for minors? Or did I miss something?