Yet another state is cracking down on hemp-derived products, some of which have intoxicating effects, and South Carolina’s approach to food products that contain hemp is among the most extreme.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) issued a warning in a letter dated Jan. 22, banning the manufacture, distribution, and sale of food and beverage products containing hemp-derived products as ingredients in the state’s marketplace.

While CBD products can easily be found in most states thanks to a lack of clarity in federal regulations, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has repeatedly warned that products containing CBD are illegal under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

The FDA routinely issues warnings that adding CBD to a food means those products are adulterated, or against products with any sort of medical claims, but the agency has delayed finalizing rules.

“Therefore, the following hemp products are NOT APPROVED to be added to food or beverage products,” the letter reads. 

• Viable, non-sterilized hemp seeds, raw hemp leaves, and raw microgreens, and any other raw, unprocessed form of hemp biomass as they are considered “plant material” and may not be possessed without a Grower or Processor License 
• Pure CBD Isolate 
• Delta-8 THC, Delta-9 THC, or Delta-10 THC 
• THC-0 or any other derivative 
• “Full spectrum” whole-plant extract (i.e. “full spectrum hemp oil/extract” from biomass) if it includes health claims, or bears any sort of declaration of THC or CBD 
• Any hemp product that is NOT manufactured in a food-grade establishment inspected under GMP or cGMP regulations. 
• Any hemp or hemp-derived product that promotes its medical or health benefits

The only exceptions are basically hemp seed derivatives. “The FDA evaluated three Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) notices for hemp products and found that the use of such products as described in the notices is safe. Therefore, the following hemp products may be legally marketed in human foods and are APPROVED to be used as ingredients in food and beverage products,” the letter continues.

“While DHEC’s goal is to educate while we regulate this growing niche of manufacturers and distributors of foods and beverages containing hemp-derived products as ingredients, our obligation under the requirements of both federal and state law is to remove from commerce all food and beverage products containing non-conforming hemp-derived products as ingredients,” Sandra Craig, Director of the DEHC’s Division of Food and Lead Risk Assessments, said in a letter announcing the bans.

Sellers can use full-spectrum whole-plant extract as an ingredient in food and beverage products if and only if the hemp-derived ingredient meets the following requirements: 

• A “full spectrum” hemp oil or extract from biomass contains the naturally occurring ratios and array of phytonutrients found in hemp. 
• Using a full spectrum hemp oil as an ingredient must be referred to in the ingredients list on the food or beverage label as “Full Spectrum Hemp Oil” or “Full Spectrum Hemp Extract.” The label may not contain health claims and may not bear any sort of declaration of “THC”, “CBD”, or “Delta-9” products or isolates. 
• When companies in South Carolina receive their “full spectrum hemp oil/extract” from their approved supplier, it must contain no more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC, as evidenced by Certificates of Analysis (COAs). The use of concentrates or “work in progress hemp oil from biomass” containing more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC, is illegal. Companies may NOT use “crude” hemp-derived oil, “work in progress” hemp oils over 0.3% Delta-9 THC, non-food grade oils, or dilute hemp oils containing an illegal amount of THC (> 0.3%) to a “legal” level. Hemp products containing more than the legal limit of THC are no longer considered to be hemp but are a Schedule I Drug. Hemp products that contain more than 0.3% THC are NOT ALLOWED to be possessed by anyone in South Carolina, and they are NOT ALLOWED to be introduced into foods or beverages.

The letter also bans any mention of THC, dosages, and several other restrictions. The letter also reminds hemp sellers that only intrastate hemp product sales are allowed.

But they’re not only going after hemp-derived cannabinoid products that are synthetically derived from hemp biomass, and known for psychoactive effects—i.e. delta-8 THC, THC-O, etc.—they’re going after products with CBD, hemp leaves, plant material and more as well. Delta-8 THC only appears in nature in minute amounts, and intoxicating amounts have to be re-added to hemp via a refluxing process in a lab. This is why states are opting to either crack down on it or regulate it like marijuana. The 2018 Farm Bill opened a legal loophole, accidentally legalizing these ingredients. Delta-8 THC products seeped into the medical markets in some states.

At least a dozen other states are actively pursuing solutions to ban hemp-derived products in one form or another.

The delta-8 THC market is bigger than ever before, regulated like hemp, but South Carolina could change that if one proposal takes root.

Rep. Rosalyn Henderson-Myers (D-Spartanburg) filed a bill under South Carolina’s upcoming legislative session that seeks to create regulations around delta-8 THC and similar products, which can be sold anywhere that hemp products are sold.

H. 4628 was prefiled in the South Carolina House Nov. 16, and referred to the Committee on Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs.

The bill would create a set of new rules for the production and sale of delta-8 THC and other Under the proposal, only adults 21 years and older could purchase those types of products.

The bill would also establish a tax at the retail level, imposing a 5% sales tax. The tax revenue would be allocated towards regulating the industry, according to the bill.

Producers and retailers would be licensed by the state, and any hemp-derived cannabinoid product produced or sold in the state must be tested for pesticides and toxins and to ensure it contains only the legal amount of delta-9 THC.

The license would be in addition to other required business licensing. The annual licensing fee would be $500 for producers and $250 for retailers, according to the prefiled bill draft.

Products would also have to have a variety of safety labeling and be contained in child-resistant packaging.

“These products are not controlled substances in South Carolina. So the quote-unquote enforcement that we’re seeing is a misguided view of the existing law,” North Carolina-based hemp attorney Rod Kight told The State. “That’s why I think it’s important that a bill like this gets passed so it’s absolutely and unambiguously clear.”

 Despite warnings from law enforcement that the products are considered illegal in the state.

Kight provides services to hemp businesses and due to the rapidly changing legal landscape around hemp. Mike Sims, one of his clients, was subject to the murky laws surrounding hemp. Sims’ store in Columbia, South Carolina, Crowntown Cannabis was raided last January when police said he was selling marijuana.

Kight clarified, however, that Sims’ store was selling hemp-derived products, not marijuana.

Confusion about what constitutes hot hemp is also an issue in South Carolina.

Law firm Collins and Lacy reports that recently, the Columbia Police Department (CPD) sent letters to over 30  retailers in the city informing them that delta-8 THC is an illegal substance. CPD is likely following the South Carolina Attorney General’s Oct.4, 2021 opinion that delta-8 is an illegal substance.

Per state law, the manufacture, distribution, and possession of a Schedule I drug is illegal and carries penalties ranging from imprisonment of up to six months and/or a fine up to $1,000 for a first offense for simple possession to imprisonment of five to twenty years and/or a fine up to $20,000 for a third or subsequent offense of manufacturing or distribution.  S.C. Code §§ 44-53-370(b)(2) & (d)(2).  “[U]nless specifically excepted”, “Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)” of any kind is listed as a Schedule I drug, separate and apart from marijuana.  S.C. Code § 44-53-190(D)(18).  Therefore, the manufacture, distribution, and/or possession of any form of THC, including delta-8, would be illegal, “unless specifically excepted” by some other statute.

Defining Delta-8 THC in South Carolina

The legal gray area is due to whether South Carolina’s Hemp Farming Act specifically outlaws delta-8 THC.

Delta-8 THC has seen a surge in popularity due to a legal loophole in federal regulations, the 2018 Farm Bill, that limits THC to 0.3% in hemp products but has no limit for delta-8 THC.

High Times reported on the significant differences between delta-8 and delta-9 THC. Researchers have known about it for decades. Roger Adams and a team of researchers at the University of Illinois were the first to report partial synthesis of delta-8 in 1941. It wasn’t until 1966, when Dr. Raphael Mechoulam and his colleague Dr. Yechiel Gaoni, achieved a total synthesis of delta-8 as part of their groundbreaking work at Hebrew University. In 2002, Dr. Mechoulam applied for a patent on the conversion of CBD into delta-8 and THC through various methods, which he received in 2008, and expired in 2022. 

Last year, a South Carolina farmer filed a lawsuit against the state over the destruction of his hemp crop in 2019.

The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 16, 2022 by John Trenton Pendarvis, and it alleges that a trio of state agencies––the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Department of Agriculture, and attorney general’s office––“all denied him due process after Department of Agriculture officials discovered unreported hemp crops during a check of his Dorchester County property on July 30, 2019,” according to the Associated Press.

Medical cannabis advocates in South Carolina are ready to go again as they hope that 2023 will finally be the year that they legalize the treatment in the state. 

Local news station WPDE reports that two bills have been “pre-filed in the South Carolina House for the 2023 legislative session [that] would legalize medical marijuana despite ongoing federal cannabis prohibition.”

One measure, per the station, is known as the Put Patients First Act and it “would authorize patients to use medical marijuana with exceptions,” while also allowing “for the opening of dispensaries across the state.”

The other, known as the South Carolina Compassionate Care Act, would authorize the use of medical cannabis while also “letting [the state department of health] control most of the process by giving out licenses to sell products, setting rules for their use of the products plus making changes to allow cannabis research,” according to WPDE.

The latter bill has the same title as a separate measure introduced last year by Republican state Sen. Tom Davis, who has advocated for medical cannabis in the Palmetto State for years. 

Under Sen. Davis’s bill, patients suffering from a host of qualifying conditions could have received medical cannabis treatment: cancer, multiple sclerosis, a neurological disease or disorder (including epilepsy), sickle cell disease, glaucoma, PTSD, autism, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, cachexia, a condition causing a person to be home-bound that includes severe or persistent nausea, terminal illness with a life expectancy of less than one year, a chronic medical condition causing severe and persistent muscle spasms or a chronic medical condition for which an opioid is or could be prescribed based on accepted standards of care.

“If you pound at the door long enough. If you make your case. If the public is asking for something, the state Senate owes a debate,” Davis told local media last January. “The people of South Carolina deserve to know where their elected officials stand on this issue.”

After the bill passed the state Senate in February, Davis applauded his colleagues.

“Even those that were opposed to the bill, I mean, they could’ve just been opposed. They could’ve ranted against it, they could’ve tried to delay things. They didn’t. They expressed their concerns, but what they then did is dug in and tried to make the bill better. And so, what you saw over the last three weeks is what’s supposed to happen in a representative democracy,” Davis said at the time.

But after the legislation won approval in the state Senate, members of the state House of Representatives voted against continuing debate on the bill in May, dashing the hopes for Davis and other medical cannabis advocates.

“We suffered a setback procedurally in the House today,” Davis said following the House’s vote last year. “I can’t cry about it. I can’t pout about it. I can’t come back and lash out and try to hurt other people’s bills. That’s not productive. I just need to find out a way to get this thing on the merits up or down in the House and that’s what I’m going to be working on.”

Davis isn’t the only one who will be clamoring for another shot at getting the proposal over the line in this upcoming legislative session. 

A group of military veterans living in South Carolina have been vocal in pushing for the legalization of the treatment in the state.

“No one has died from an overdose with cannabis ever,” Cody Callarman, a former member of the Marine corps, told the news station WACH in November. “For me, I can say, it definitely helps me to go to sleep and stay [a]sleep and alleviate a lot of nightmares.”

A number of military veterans in South Carolina are pushing lawmakers in the state to legalize medical marijuana. 

Local news station WACH reports this week on the group of vets, who “say it needs to be a top priority for lawmakers when they return to the state house in January after several proposals were stopped in their tracks earlier this year.”

“No one has died from an overdose with cannabis ever,” Cody Callarman, a former member of the Marine corps, told the news station. “For me, I can say, it definitely helps me to go to sleep and stay sleep and alleviate a lot of nightmares.”

“I say this is the land of the free, and the home of the brave, and we were the brave ones. We should have our choice of medical treatment,” Callarman added.

Another veteran named Robert Leheup told the station that the “idea of us not allowing veterans to have access to these tools is something that we need to remedy immediately.”

“It’s definitely one of those things that if you use it, along with counseling for example, it has the potential to have profound impacts,” Leheup told the station. 

Lawmakers in South Carolina considered a medical cannabis bill earlier this year. The legislation won approval in the state Senate, but in May, it was voted down in the state House of Representatives. 

The sponsor of the bill, Republican state Sen. Tom Davis, has been in the vanguard of the effort to legalize medical cannabis treatment in the state for years. 

“If you pound at the door long enough. If you make your case. If the public is asking for something, the state Senate owes a debate,” Davis said in January. “The people of South Carolina deserve to know where their elected officials stand on this issue.”

After the legislation was approved in the state Senate in February, Davis commended his colleagues. 

“Even those that were opposed to the bill, I mean, they could’ve just been opposed. They could’ve ranted against it, they could’ve tried to delay things. They didn’t. They expressed their concerns, but what they then did is dug in and tried to make the bill better. And so, what you saw over the last three weeks is what’s supposed to happen in a representative democracy,” Davis said at the time.

But in May, Davis’s bill was rejected by his counterparts in the state House of Representatives by a vote of 59-55.

“We suffered a setback procedurally in the House today,” Davis said at the time. “I can’t cry about it. I can’t pout about it. I can’t come back and lash out and try to hurt other people’s bills. That’s not productive. I just need to find out a way to get this thing on the merits up or down in the House and that’s what I’m going to be working on.”

Should lawmakers take up the proposal in the upcoming session, there will be opposition.

Local news station WACH quoted state House Rep. Vic Dabney, a veteran himself, who said he intends to oppose the next legislation.

“I know a lot of veterans that are not sitting down eating gummy bears laced with cannabis,” Dabney told the station. “We’ve got enough drugged up people in America as it is.”

“It was going to be another government program and a huge boondoggle where you’d have more than 400 dispensaries across the state,” Dabney added. “That was further reasons for me to vote against it.”

A South Carolina farmer has filed a lawsuit against the state over the destruction of his hemp crop in 2019.

The suit, filed on September 16 by John Trenton Pendarvis, alleges that a trio of state agencies––the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Department of Agriculture, and attorney general’s office––“all denied him due process after Department of Agriculture officials discovered unreported hemp crops during a check of his Dorchester County property on July 30, 2019,” according to the Associated Press.

The Associated Press reports that Pendarvis asserts in the complaint that he “filed an amendment application and said that extensive droughts had forced him to move his crop’s location,” but “Derek Underwood, assistant commissioner of the Agriculture Department’s Consumer Protection Division, insisted that the farmer’s oversight was a ‘willful violation’ of the state’s hemp farming program” and “then began seeking approval to destroy the crop.”

Pendarvis was the first person to be charged under South Carolina’s law governing hemp cultivation.

The 2019 law requires farmers to “report their hemp crops’ coordinates to the South Carolina Department of Agriculture” and bars them from growing “plants that [exceed] the federal THC limits.”

Pendarvis’ lawsuit highlights the law’s lack of clarity and the confusion over how it should be enforced.

The Associated Press has more background on the case:

“After failing to get a local judge to sign their seizure and destruction order, [South Carolina Law Enforcement Division] agents — without detailing their intent to destroy the crop — obtained an arrest warrant for Pendarvis from another magistrate. Emails shared in the complaint show that agents took this action despite the original judge offering to hold a hearing in the matter, which [South Carolina Law Enforcement Division]’s general counsel Adam Whitsett declined. Officials in the attorney general’s office then amended their guidance to agree with [South Carolina Law Enforcement Division]’s conclusion that the hemp farming participation agreement — which allows the destruction of crops growing in an unlicensed area — amounted to the ‘valid consent’ necessary to pursue their plan.”

He filed a separate lawsuit last year “in Dorchester County against the S.C. Commissioner of Agriculture, the Dorchester County Sheriff’s Office and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division saying both his arrest and the destruction of his crops were illegal,” according to The State newspaper.

That complaint included “claims of unlawful arrest, assault and battery, abuse of process, defamation and negligence,” the newspaper reported.

Industrial hemp production was made legal at the federal level when Congress passed the 2018 Farm Bill, prompting every state in the country to get in on the new “cash crop.”

But despite its own hemp law, South Carolina continues to take a hardline against cannabis, and is one of the last remaining states that has not legalized medical marijuana.

A group of lawmakers there tried to change that in this year’s legislative session.

The state Senate approved a medical cannabis bill in February, but the measure went up in smoke in the state House of Representatives in May.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Tom Davis, has been championing medical cannabis treatment in the state for years.

“If you pound at the door long enough. If you make your case. If the public is asking for something, the state Senate owes a debate,” Davis said in January after introducing the bill in the chamber. “The people of South Carolina deserve to know where their elected officials stand on this issue.”

He applauded his colleagues in the state Senate after it won approval in the chamber.

“Even those that were opposed to the bill, I mean, they could’ve just been opposed. They could’ve ranted against it, they could’ve tried to delay things. They didn’t. They expressed their concerns, but what they then did is dug in and tried to make the bill better. And so, what you saw over the last three weeks is what’s supposed to happen in a representative democracy,” Davis said at the time.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — A South Carolina farmer is suing several state agencies in federal court on grounds they conspired to deny him his due process rights after authorities in 2019 destroyed his hemp crop, which was grown in unregistered fields.

In a federal lawsuit filed Sept. 16, John Trenton Pendarvis alleges the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Department of Agriculture and attorney general’s office all denied him due process after Department of Agriculture officials discovered unreported hemp crops during a check of his Dorchester County property on July 30, 2019.

According to the lawsuit, Pendarvis filed an amendment application and said that extensive droughts had forced him to move his crop’s location. However, Derek Underwood, assistant commissioner of the Agriculture Department’s Consumer Protection Division, insisted that the farmer’s oversight was a “willful violation” of the state’s hemp farming program, according to emails shared in the complaint. He then began seeking approval to destroy the crop.

The legal mechanism for seeking such approval is unclear, which is where Pendarvis alleges the government’s procedure violated his due process rights.

South Carolina has taken a stringent approach to all matters relating to cannabis over the years. The state remains one of a handful where medical marijuana is illegal after a seven-year effort to join about 38 other states in legalizing medical marijuana failed this spring. [Read More @ AP News]

By Sadaf Naushad, NCIA Intern 

Although the action-packed April must come to an end, the fight for cannabis reform never stops! With U.S. Senators delaying the much-anticipated introduction of the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA) last month, Congress has a lot of work to do. 

In the meantime, a congressional bicameral partisan committee is considering the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act as an amendment to the House’s U.S. Innovation and Competition (COMPETES) Act.

Now let’s focus on action occurring within the states. State-level updates help provide us with insights on cannabis reform progress at the federal level. As more state constituents vote in favor of cannabis initiatives, reformation support overall increases within the United States. Efforts to reform cannabis policies at the state level encourage members of Congress at the federal level to enact legislation.  

Let’s take a look at this week’s state-level insights: 

New York

As the legal cannabis market is set to launch later this year, New York lawmakers intend to ensure that a sufficient supply of marijauna exists. Last month, state regulators voted to allow conditional marijuana cultivation licenses to several hemp businesses. Regulators also established that adults with prior cannabis convictions, along with family members who have previously faced criminalization, would receive the first round of adult-use cannabis retailer licenses – ahead of present medical marijuana businesses. This week, lawmakers recently approved a second round of applications for recreational cannabis cultivators. Additionally, the Cannabis Control Board (CCB) passed amended regulations granting medical marijuana patients to grow their own plants for personal use.   

Delaware

A Delaware House Committee approved a bill that would terminate 50 years of cannabis prohibition and criminalization. For the second time in history, Delaware’s District 24 Representative Ed Osienski (D) introduced House Bill 371, legislation legalizing cannabis possession and gifting. The legislation is attached to a companion measure that would build a regulatory framework for the market. Its two-piece model comes after the House defeated a prior measure in March that incorporated both components. 

South Carolina

An eight-year attempt to legalize medical marijuana in a largely conservative state abruptly came to an end on the House floor Wednesday. South Carolina’s District 13 Representative and House Leader John McCravy (R) ruled that the Session 124 measure comprises an unconstitutional tax increase, thereby ceasing further consideration of the bill. According to Representative McCravy, since the bill contains a tax on medical cannabis, lawmakers should have introduced the bill in the House under the state constitution’s article for legislation that raises revenue. The bill’s sponsor, U.S. Senator Tom Davis (R), is rapidly seeking other ways to keep the issue active as the session concludes. 

Missouri

In preparation for the 2022 midterm elections, a Missouri House Committee approved a GOP-led joint resolution seeking to place cannabis legalization on the November ballot. Missouri’s District 98 Representative Shamed Dogan (R) sponsored an amended version of the legislation, in which The Special Committee on Criminal Justice passed in a 7-2 vote. The amended bill eliminated provisions that would remove the state’s current separate medical marijuana program and set regulations regarding taxation in the legal market. Under the amended resolution, marijuana offenses would be removed from the Missouri criminal statute, permitting adults to possess, use and sell cannabis without facing penalties. 

Washington

State officials Lieutenant Governor Denny Heck (D), Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D), Treasurer Mike Pellicciotti (D) and Governor Jay Inslee (D) sent a letter to congressional leaders, outlining the urgency of passing the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act. With Washington being one of the first states to legalize cannabis, lawmakers remain frustrated at the industry’s lack of access to essential financial services stemming from federal prohibition. 

New Jersey

Last month the state attorney general’s office released a controversial document detailing how New Jersey’s marijuana laws currently authorize police to use cannabis when not working. This week, New Jersey lawmakers introduced a string of bills designed to encourage employers to penalize workers from consuming cannabis off duty in compliance with state law. Punishable workers specifically include law enforcement officers and first responders. Now, three new bills exist that intend to enforce restrictions on such activity for particular employees. New Jersey’s 6th Legislative District Representative Louis Greenwald (D) aims to amend state statute to contain the following provisions: penalizing police for using cannabis, conducting random drug tests and the right to refuse job applicants due to lawful cannabis use. Although Representative Greenwald’s bill targets police officers, two other measures presently remain that would also impose employment-based restrictions on lawful marijuana use. 

Ohio

The Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol (CTRMLA) filed a lawsuit to keep cannabis legalization on Ohio’s November 2022 ballot. In December 2021, CTRMLA turned in petition signatures to Ohio’s secretary of state’s office, but the office deemed the signatures insufficient. To advance the legislative review of their measure, CTRMLA turned in additional petitions on January 13, 2022. According to the state statute, however, a ballot petition must be submitted “no less than ten days prior to the commencement of any session of the general assembly.” The session commenced on January 19, falling outside of that ten-day certification window. As a result, CTRMLA contacted Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, requesting a  ruling on a prospective challenge concerning the timing of the group’s initial signature submission to Ohio for the reform proposal. 

Stay tuned for more updates on cannabis policy reform. If you are interested in learning more about NCIA’s government relations work and how to get involved please reach out to Madeline@thecannabisindustry.org. 

An effort to save a bill that would legalize medical cannabis in South Carolina failed on Wednesday in the state legislature, dimming its prospects this year.

The State newspaper of Columbia, South Carolina reports that “House lawmakers on Wednesday voted 59-55 against an appeal proposed by House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, to keep the bill alive,” which followed a request from a Republican member of the state House that “the proposal be ruled unconstitutional since it creates a new tax, arguing that revenue-raising bills can only originate in the lower chamber.”

As the newspaper noted, the move “likely [ends] any hope of passage this year.”

It marks a disappointing development after the bill won approval in the state Senate in February. Members of that chamber deemed medical cannabis a major priority at the start of the legislative session earlier this year.

The bill’s sponsor, GOP state Sen. Tom Davis, has been pushing a medical cannabis bill since 2015.

“If you pound at the door long enough. If you make your case. If the public is asking for something, the state Senate owes a debate,” Davis told The Post and Courier in January. “The people of South Carolina deserve to know where their elected officials stand on this issue.”

Davis’s effort to get medical cannabis legalized in South Carolina has been marked by incremental progress.

Per The Post and Courier, the Senate Medical Affairs Committee brought Davis’s bill to the floor in 2018, but “opposition blocked a floor debate from ever happening.” The newspaper said that the “2021 session closed last May with GOP leadership promising Davis he’d get a vote this year.”

In February, the bill, known as the SC Compassionate Care Act, broke through and was approved in the state Senate by a vote of 28-15.

“Even those that were opposed to the bill, I mean, they could’ve just been opposed. They could’ve ranted against it, they could’ve tried to delay things. They didn’t. They expressed their concerns, but what they then did is dug in and tried to make the bill better. And so, what you saw over the last three weeks is what’s supposed to happen in a representative democracy,” Davis said at the time, as quoted by local television station WCSC.

But the dream appeared to die on Wednesday in the South Carolina House. According to The State, Davis “and other Senate leaders stood speechless in the House chamber Wednesday as they watched a last-ditch effort to save the bill fail,” with the Republican leader in the Senate saying that the procedural move could “have significant consequences on the relationship between the House and Senate.”

“We suffered a setback procedurally in the House today,” Davis said, as quoted by The State. “I can’t cry about it. I can’t pout about it. I can’t come back and lash out and try to hurt other people’s bills. That’s not productive. I just need to find out a way to get this thing on the merits up or down in the House and that’s what I’m going to be working on.”

Advocates such as Davis might be running out of moves, too. The State reported that it is not clear “whether State House leaders would be willing to put the issue on the sine die resolution, an agreement between the chambers that outlines what they can debate after the session adjourns.”

“I need to figure out if there’s another vehicle. We still have four days left in the session, lots of bills on the calendar, some involving pharmacies and medical affairs, and things of that nature,” Davis said, as quoted by The State. “And so I think there’s an opportunity and I’ll explore what they are.”