Bill banning GA liquor stores from selling wholesale hemp products back returning to committee
Senate Bill 229 was proposed in February and is expected before a committee again on Wednesday.
According to the proposed legislation, if passed it would amend the Georgia Hemp Farming Act.
In terms of what changes the bill makes, SB 229 would prevent wholesale dealers of alcoholic beverages from receiving sale licenses for consumable hemp. Anyone who is affiliated with a wholesale dealer of alcoholic beverages would also be prevented from getting a license.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
TRENDING STORIES:
Woman stabs man to death before being shot, killed by police in Paulding County
What to know about risk for isolated severe storms on Wednesday
Bill removing prosecution exemptions for Georgia librarians over 'harmful' materials faces vote
Georgia law says a wholesale alcoholic beverage dealer is any seller who sells beverages to other wholesale dealers, to retail dealers or to retail consumers. This includes liquor stores as well as those who manufacture or distribute alcoholic beverages, like distilleries, breweries or vineyards, among others.
So which products would this affect as far as hemp?
In Georgia, consumable hemp products are any hemp product meant to be eaten, absorbed or inhaled by people or animals.
This means that for a liquor store or hemp seller to sell their goods, they could not sell the other products, or even be affiliated with someone who is directly or indirectly controlled by a business that either sells alcohol or hemp products.
If you sell CBD or THC or Delta-9 products in Georgia, you would be unable to also sell alcohol, or work for someone who sells alcohol, with the opposite relationship also true.
[SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
An Expensive Health Care Cliff Is Coming Unless Republicans Stop It
WASHINGTON — Top Senate Republicans indicated this week they'd be open to extending one of former President Joe Biden's signature health care policies to avoid a politically poisonous spike in insurance costs ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The enhanced premium tax credits, which Democrats included in President Joe Biden's American Rescue Plan Act, reduced the cost of health insurance for many middle-class people enrolled in Obamacare exchanges. The average person who buys insurance through the exchanges is expected to pay 75% more for their premium if the tax credits expire, according to an analysis from KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research group. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has also projected that letting the subsidies lapse would lead to about 5 million Americans losing their insurance over the next 10 years. 'I am part of a small group that is looking to try to find a path forward to extend those,' said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). 'I think it is recognized that our failure to do that could result in some pretty precipitous increases in costs for Americans for their health insurance, and that's not where we want to end up at the end of this year.' 'It's not these people's fault that they're forced onto Obamacare in the first place and then to take away what the government promised them in terms of this credit, seems to me to be not exactly the most desirable outcome,' added Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). The looming expiration of the tax credits was put on the back burner by Republicans during the first six months of President Donald Trump's term as the party focused on passing his agenda of tax cuts and historic cuts to Medicaid, as well as slashing foreign aid and public broadcasting funding. Discussions are now underway in the Senate for a bipartisan solution to a problem that could have serious ramifications for the GOP in next year's elections, with high prices and inflation still on top of voters' minds. They are being led by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the chair of the Senate health committee, who has previously criticized the credits, but who is also facing voters at the ballot box next year. Passing a bipartisan fix is easier said than done, however. For one, it'll be costly. An estimate from CBO said it would cost $380 billion over a decade to make the subsidies permanent. Senate Republicans are eyeing a smaller fix of about $125 billion with a lower income threshold to qualify for the credit, as well as an offset to pay for it. 'I think we'll be able to offer an appropriate offset, and I think it would be very difficult for Democrats to be able to say no to that,' Rounds said. Many conservatives are flat-out opposed to extending the tax credits, however. Some are pushing for rolling back Obamacare more broadly, including by winding down its Medicaid expansion, in future reconciliation bills. 'Nobody's losing coverage, that's what's important to me,' Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said when asked what Congress ought to do when the tax credits expire. Even if the Senate can agree on a fix — something that would require 60 votes — passage could be more complicated in the GOP-controlled House, where there's no guarantee that leadership would even take it up. Lawmakers could potentially tuck it into an end-of-the-year government funding bill, but that could also risk a government shutdown. 'I think that goes to the end of the calendar year, so we'll have discussion about the issue later. But it hasn't come up yet. But it's on the radar,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters this week when asked about the ACA credits. Waiting until the end of the year to address the issue may be too late, however. While the tax credits technically expire on Dec. 31, insurers must file their final rates for health plans offered on ACA exchanges for next year by Aug. 13, according to the centrist think tank Third Way. That's smack-dab in the middle of Congress' annual recess. It's not clear where the White House stands on the issue. Getting Trump on board with extending the subsidies could help move Republican votes on Capitol Hill. A memo from a conservative advocacy organization, for example, warned this week that the benefits of the president's tax cut law will be nullified if the subsidies are not extended and people's health care costs go up. Not extending the subsidies will also hand Democrats — who are already eager to run against Trump's cuts to Medicaid — a further advantage on health care issues, particularly in purple battleground states that could determine the control of the House and Senate next year. The issue, for now, remains a bit of a sleeper: A KFF poll conducted last month found just 28% of Americans had heard 'a lot' or 'some' about the credits' potential expiration. But a full 77% of Americans, including 56% of self-identified MAGA supporters, back their extension. 'For some people, their premiums will as much as double, and people don't have the resources in their household income in order to be able to absorb that,' Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) told HuffPost. 'Donald Trump and the Republicans are doing the opposite of what he said he was going to do. He said he was going to drive costs down. He's driving them up every single day. So I think they've got a decision to make about whether they're OK with that.'
Wall Street Journal
2 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Righting Our Fiscal Ship Is a Necessary National Voyage
Your editorial 'Rescission Time for the GOP Senate' (July 16) is correct: $9 billion in clawbacks is a small, but significant step toward restoring fiscal sanity in Washington. Passing the rescissions package is necessary to rein in some wasteful spending, but these savings alone won't right the fiscal ship. The national debt has grown by $384 billion since the House passed the rescissions bill on June 10—that averages out to $11 billion per day in new debt.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Sanders, Democrats push effort to kill ‘handouts' for fossil fuels in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and other critics of the Trump administration's environmental policies are renewing a push for legislation that would end energy subsidies that the critics say will 'destroy the planet.' The proposal, dubbed the 'End Polluter Welfare Act,' is a revival of past environmental advocacy efforts from Sanders and others, but it adds in targeted responses to Trump's agenda-setting 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act' signed into law this month after passage by GOP majorities in the House and Senate. 'Donald Trump has sold out the young people of America and future generations,' Sanders, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nominations in 2016 and 2020, said in a statement Friday. 'The fossil fuel industry, with the support of Trump, is more concerned about their short-term profits than the wellbeing of the planet.' 'No more polluter welfare for an industry that is making billions every year destroying the planet,' Sanders added. The Hill reached out to the White House, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of the Interior for comment. The latest progressive-driven proposal would cut more than $190 billion in federal subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the next decade, including $20 billion in bonuses designated for coal, oil, methane and pipeline companies through Trump's massive tax and spending overhaul. It also would also prevent the Trump administration from opening new public lands to drilling and mining. Other lawmakers who have signed onto the legislation include Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). It has more than 20 additional House backers. 'Fossil fuel companies have known for decades that their product harms the climate, but have made obscene profits while communities are left to clean up the mess,' Mahyar Sorour, a spokesperson for the environmental advocacy group Sierra Club, said in a statement. 'Taxpayers cannot afford to write a blank check to Big Oil and Gas companies through subsidies, corporate giveaways, and sweetheart deals.' Republicans, under Trump's tight control, hold majorities in the House and Senate, so it's unlikely the legislation will gain much traction ahead of the 2026 midterm election cycle. However, opponents of Trump's shift in environmental policies argue that they want to highlight potential ramifications from the administration's efforts. 'We are done letting fossil fuel executives write the rules while our communities pay the price,' Omar said in a statement on the proposed legislation. 'The End Polluter Welfare Act will finally hold polluters accountable and eliminate these harmful subsidies once and for all.' The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is projected to significantly ding the country's efforts to reverse the effects of climate change and add more emissions that will exacerbate global warming. Climate think tank C2ES found in an independent analysis that U.S. emissions will be 8 percent higher because of the new Trump law. The most significant provisions in the Trump-driven policies repeal tax credits for green energy technologies such as wind, solar energy and electric vehicles efforts adopted in the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.
