♪ opening music ♪ ♪ <Gavin> Welcome to This Week in South Carolina.

I'm Gavin Jackson.

While much work was done in committee meetings this week at the Statehouse, one bill made it to the Senate floor on special order, the medical marijuana bill.

We'll talk with the bill's sponsor Beaufort, Republican Senator Tom Davis and get the latest on the COVID surge from DHEC Public Health Director, Dr. Brannon Traxler.

But first more from this week.

The third week of the legislative session was full of Senate action and controversial topics under debate in committees.

The Senate passed their bill to repeal the Certificate of Need, a complex regulation that dictates if and where certain medical facilities can locate and restrict certain equipment purchases, as well.

Opponents of the regulations say it's outdated and anti-competitive.

It now heads to the House.

The House Education Committee got into a discussion over several Republican bills, dealing with Critical Race Theory, a hot button issue that few can define and is not part of K through 12 curriculum.

>> I will never apologize for the sins of my ancestors in the past, I can't attest to what they did, and what was the sole purpose of their lives.

and so for us to go in a classroom and tell our children that this happened because of your, you know, terrible White grandfather, you know, or great grandfather, that is just wrong.

Our kids deal with enough today to be burdened with our sins and the sins of our past, anyway.

>> CRT and the real sense that we're trying to define this as an analysis of how race and part systems and institutions.

That's what we are dealing with how the impart of race and the impact that it has on individuals and their feelings towards race, is that I'm just trying - I'm just trying to again put a pin in this whole definition thing.

<Pierce McNair Jr.> Mr. Alexander, you bring up a definition of CRT.

Unfortunately, there are so many definitions on the topic now, which is why we mentioned earlier, for the purposes of the legislation, it will be up to this committee's deliberation to define how far it goes and what it is <Gavin> The committee will receive testimony on February 8.

A Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee sent two bills dealing with abortion to the full committee, including one that would ban all abortions in the state, should the US Supreme Court overturn Roe vs. Wade, which ensures access to the medical procedure, but the focus was on the Medical Marijuana Bill debate which started Wednesday in the Senate and will continue into next week.

We'll hear from bill sponsor, Tom Davis shortly, but opponents including law enforcement, leaders in his own party and one of his senate colleagues slammed the bill right before the floor debate started.

>> And for us to say and state lawmakers that this is medicine, and it is good for you, I had to start - It's shocking, It leaves me ...almost speechless when I think of our number one job as state lawmakers is to protect the people that send us here is to look out for them to take care of them.

Be on their side, and we're about to consider a bill where we would say to them, this is not - this is medicine.

It's safe, and it's good for you.

And that is a lie, and it's misleading and it's going to lead to destruction and heartbreak and bad health outcomes.

<Gavin> The Medical Marijuana Bill is in priority debate status in the Chamber and amendments will be debated next week.

Davis is confident it will pass and make its way over to the House.

So far, 37 states including most recently Mississippi have medical marijuana laws.

South Carolina's would be the strictest.

Beaufort Republican Senator Tom Davis is here to talk about his Medical Marijuana Bill, which is now on the Senate floor for debate after seven years.

Senator, welcome back.

>> I appreciate you having me.

>>Like I said, this bill has been a work in progress for several years.

I remember covering it back in Florence in 2014, when you held one of your first field hearings on this topic, but a lot has taken place since then, sir.

So tell us what's in this bill, exactly.

And how's this debate going right now?

<Sen.

Davis> I think what they need to know about this bill is that it's very tightly regulated.

It's very conservative, and it is an incremental step toward empowering doctors to help patients who can benefit from their suffering using medical cannabis.

We have very limited number of conditions 13 particular conditions.

That's much narrower than a lot of states.

But I took a lot of care in only lifting qualifying conditions for which there is a body of medical research that shows medical cannabis can be efficacious, I mean, so I wanted to be very precise in that regard.

I mean, I recognize what South Carolinians want as a whole, the majority of them, I think they want a bill that empowers doctors.

They want to build that helps patients, but they don't want there to be any slippery slope or any move toward recreational or adult use, And so what I've worked seven years to provide, is a very conservative bill that empowers doctors, helps patients and does not lead to that slippery slope, and so we work very closely with the South Carolina Medical Association, with the State Law Enforcement Division with DHEC, with other stakeholders, and literally seven years worth of hearings, study, revising the language.

It is a very mature bill at this point in time, and we've had the benefit of looking at the 37 states that have legalized cannabis for medical purposes, and looking at the statutes and figuring out what's worked and what didn't work, so well.

Which ones do I want to take and borrow for our bill, because I want South Carolina's medical cannabis bill to be a template for any other state that wants to pass a purely medical bill based on science, lots of safeguards in place to make sure it isn't improperly diverted, and I think that's what we're debating on the floor of the Senate this week.

...I think that's ultimately what's going to get passed.

<Gavin> So Senator - what do you say to folks who say this could lead to a slippery slope, that it could lead to recreational marijuana use and legalization?

Is that something that, you know, could actually happen?

They're saying that this could lead to the infrastructure getting put into place to lead to that widespread legalization?

What do you say to that?

>> I mean, the only way something like that would happen is if it got a majority vote in the House of Representatives and majority vote in the South Carolina Senate and then signed by the governor.

I mean, every state is going to be different in that regard.

I mean, California and Colorado, they have adult recreational use, but the people of California and the people of Colorado and other states that have legalized it for adult use, they're different than the people of South Carolina, South Carolinians have their own values.

They have their own beliefs in regard to the proper role of government.

They have their own beliefs in regard to medical cannabis or recreational cannabis, and overwhelmingly, poll after poll shows that South Carolinians want to empower doctors.

They want to help patients who are suffering, and they are opposed to recreational adult use.

So I mean, that's the obvious answer.

I mean, the law isn't going to change in South Carolina, unless majority of the House and the Senate agree it should change.

and the governor signs it.

and House members and Senate members obviously represent their constituents and they reflect what their constituents want.

So, I mean, I think that that's my answer is that South Carolina is in California.

and we ought not be afraid of doing something very narrow and very specific and very well regulated, that empowers doctors to help patients without this fear that somehow there's going to be a sea change in South Carolina in regard to adult use.

I mean, that's a whole separate issue.

<Gavin>...I don't want to get too tangled up in two of them because a lot of people are conflating legalization, widespread recreational use versus what you're talking about this medical use, this narrowly tailored bill, but would you support recreational legalization of marijuana in this state if it did come up in the future?

<Rep.

Davis>I don't think that's where the people of South Carolina are and our job as elected officials.

...we're to study the issues, and yes, in a representative democracy, we make decisions on behalf of our constituents.

When it comes to core issues like this, it's extraordinarily important that we reflect what our constituents want, and what constituents have said over and over again, by substantial majority says, they want medical cannabis to empower doctors to help patients.

They do not want adult or recreational use.

And I think as members of the General Assembly, we have an obligation, you know, to implement and uphold what our constituents want.

<Gavin> So, you're with them at this point, just for medicinal use.

>> Yeah, I mean, it's, you know, I'm not up here to do what Tom Davis, you know, thinks is right.

I'm up here to reflect what my constituents want.

That's what - that's the nature of this whole representative form of government that we have is that issues come up, and you have to take soundings back among constituents to find out where they are on the issues.

So, this is one of those issues where it's extremely important to listen to what South Carolinians are saying, and as I pointed out on the floor yesterday, even when they're told that law enforcement has opposed this bill, even when they're told that some social conservative groups like Palmetto Family Council, are opposed to this bill, they're still approving medical cannabis by 70% to 24%.

I mean, so they're informed on this issue.

They're engaged and the reason you're seeing the numbers fall like that, is because cannabis can provide relief to people who are suffering, people with epilepsy or PTSD or you know, chronic pain for which they're taking opioids or glaucoma or cerebral palsy or any number of conditions again, 13 specific conditions, it makes a difference in their lives and what they're having to do now is go out and buy it illegally.

They don't want the law but it's the only thing that provides them relief and the danger there is they don't know what they're getting.

They don't know if there's adulterants or impurities or something in that, that marijuana that they're buying, it makes is dangerous and harmful for them.

They don't know what the ratio of THC to CBD is, which is important to figuring out what is best to address your condition.

What this bill does, is it legalizes controls it, regulates it, provides public safety components to it.

And so that's our obligation here.

I mean, and so, I mean, even opponents of the bill yesterday, they admitted that if their child was screaming in pain, and nothing solved that pain, except, you know, accessing cannabis, that Yeah, they'd go ahead and they do it.

So if that's the case, why is there a law that prevents them from doing it?

I mean, you're not being where you're forcing our citizens to break the law, simply to do what's in their child or their best interests.

<Gavin> So, Senator Davis, can you tell us a little bit more about who would qualify on your bill for obtaining medical cannabis, and what form would it be in specifically, when people would get it where they could get it?

>> Right.

Individuals who would qualify would be individuals who had one of the 13 qualifying conditions that are listed in the bill, a physician would have to in an person diagnosis confirm that the patient had that sort of qualifying condition, confirm that traditional medications have not provided relief, confirm that there has been counseling in regard to cannabis and its impact on the body and issue of written certification.

So it's a pretty high bar that an individual has to pass in order for a physician to authorize the use of cannabis now, in regard to the mode of consumption, in talking with law enforcement, and in trying to address their concerns, they said their number one concern was they didn't want smoking of cannabis.

They didn't want burning of leaf... that when somebody was smoking a joint or burning leaf, that they wanted to be certain that, that was something that was illegal.

And that was something that wasn't medical use.

And so we adjusted the bill.

And we said the only forms in which it can be consumed will be in an oil form whether it's a topical or a salve, or something oral that you take or something that you vape so that there is a very clear visual distinction that law enforcement can make between those who are consuming marijuana illegally for recreational purposes by burning leaf, as opposed to those who are consuming cannabis for medical reasons, legally, and we made that adjustment.

<Gavin> Well, so you're talking about addressing these concerns for law enforcement.

I was at a press conference this week, right before debate started in the Senate, regarding these concerns brought by law enforcement brought by the Palmetto Family Council, and even members of your own party leadership, the SE GOP was in attendance for that press conference.

You mentioned addressing some of these concerns over the years to make it you know, more in line with what folks want, But what is the big concern, now?

It seems like there it's people are still asking for more and for more what else needs to be done to make this more palatable for these folks?

>> Right, one of the things that came out on the floor yesterday, through questions that Senator Campsen asked me and also Senator Loftis', how do we get the skill and expertise and experience of pharmacists into the dispensing arena - dispensing space, okay?

We have a really high bar on the front end in terms of doctors having to authorize it's use by patients, I think we need to do a better job.

and what I need to work on is integrating pharmacists into that dispensing process so that you have the benefit of their experience and their skill, when they interact with the patient who have the written authorization from the doctor to access medical cannabis, I think it's important to bring the skill set of pharmacists into that space.

And so that's one of the things that I learned about yesterday on the floor, and it's really why a floor debate is very important, because I'm one of 45 senators there, very intelligent people there who can express their concerns, their ideas, and so when I'm up there talking and people are interacting with me, I'm taking notes in regard to how can we make this bill better?

How can we make it safer for consumers?

How can we make it safer for patients?

How can we truly make it even more of a medical bill than it is now?

And so that's one of the takeaways I had yesterday.

And there may be others.

And again, well, that's the whole purpose of this floor debate is to understand what other senators are thinking about this.

I've worked on it for seven years, and so I mean, I've schooled myself on it, but it's important for me to understand that there are others that maybe be able to offer things that I haven't thought of and that's what we're doing right now, <Gavin> Senator in the opening segment for this show, I played a clip of Senator Greg Hembree.

He's a Republican from Horry County.

He was at that press conference, as well.

And he says it's a lie that marijuana is safe and good to use, and will only lead to destruction and heartbreak.

How do you respond to that?

When you hear these stories and these concerns?

<Sen.

Davis> ...the only way I can respond to that is by looking at the you know, just reams of medical studies, clinical studies, peer reviewed studies that have showed that marijuana can clearly be a benefit in certain circumstances, and again, marijuana is not a panacea, okay.

It may not be for...everybody.

And that's why we make it very physician centric.

Okay?

It's a physician sitting across, you know, in a doctor's room with a patient, discussing alternatives, assessing their condition, looking at what their medication history has been, judging what kind of successes and failures, they've had.

It's a very personal decision between a physician and a patient as to what's in their patient's best interest.

I'm not in a position to step into that relationship and impose my will, and with all due respect to law enforcement who do a tremendous job for us keeping us safe out there in the public.

They're not the ones that ought to be involved in that physician - patient relationship either.

Okay, that is a very sacred relationship, and what's right for one person is not right for another.

So I don't want to substitute my judgment.

I don't think Senator Hembree's judgment should be substituted for what a physician and a patient thinks in the patient's best interest.

<Gavin> ...with a minute left, sir, can you tell us what are the next steps in this debate?

Obviously,...you just got on the bill.

It could be a long debate.

I've heard there's a lot of amendments involved in this, but it's also I've heard that you probably have the votes to get it out of the Senate.

Is that true?

How do you see it going forward, if it does over in the House?

>> Well, I'm encouraged by what my colleagues have told me.

...I think there's going to be some more debate today, the debate will spill over into next week.

I'll probably have floor debate about an hour or so, but then I want to hear what my colleagues have to say.

I'll take my seat.

At some point further on in the debate, I may get back up to provide some more context in regard to what's been said.

But again...I'm encouraged by what my colleagues have told me.

My impression is that people are very engaged, and even those that have not decided one way or the other, are engaging in a way that suggests to me, they want to figure out a way to get to yes on this.

...so we're going to take our time in the Senate, we're going to make sure that we pass a very solid bill, and I'm confident that it will pass and that when it crosses over to the House, I'm confident that it will move through the committee process and go to the House floor for a vote.

I don't know the politics of the House as well, as I do the Senate.

So I don't know.

...what I'm told is that there's a strong support for a very tightly regulated medical cannabis bill there.

So, I'm optimistic about getting something passed through both chambers and sent down to Governor McMaster before we adjourn in May.

<Gavin> Yeah, we know time is ticking, because it is the last year of the session.

So, we'll be watching it with you.

That's Senator Tom Davis of Beaufort.

Thank you for telling us about your Medical Marijuana Bill today.

<Sen.

Davis> I appreciate you having me.

<Gavin> Now, to discuss the latest on the COVID-19 surge is DHEC Director of Public Health.

Dr. Brannon Traxler.

Dr. Traxler, Thanks for coming back.

>> Sure.

Thanks for having me back.

<Gavin> So, Dr. Traxler it's been kind of an odd week for DHEC, we're talking about reporting issues.

We're in the middle of this Omicron surge.

Some data has taken longer than expected to get counted for.

Tell us the latest.

What's going on and how this is moving forward.

>> Sure, so we did have some data processing issues over the weekend and into the first part of this week.

But I am happy to report that those were solved, and we were able to get all the data and put it into the system and cleaned and report it out yesterday.

I think the percent positivity was the only part that did not go out yesterday, because the negative results were still being imported.

But in terms of... all the case counts, and so forth, everything is back up and running smoothly now and there have been systems put in place to be able to overcome these issues and process these volumes, which we hopefully won't need again.

But should we, it's there for the future.

<Gavin> Can you delve a little bit deeper into this?

What was the cause of these issues?

<Dr.

Traxler> Sure.

So, some of it was an IT, not our IT department, but an IT type issue, literally involving the software that connects the way we get labs in to our database.

And so labs primarily come into our system, one of two mechanisms.

One of them's electronic lab reporting, which, especially the bigger hospitals, bigger labs are set up to do.

And that's really the best and easiest way for the labs to come in.

The other half of our labs come in on CSV files, And it was the processing and inputting of the CSV files that as we got a lot more of them and a lot all at once, basically clogged up and became a bottleneck at a choke point.

<Gavin>...we talked to Dr. Edward Simmer, a couple of weeks ago about, you know, just being prepared for the surge and the difficulties, DHEC and other labs have been facing?

Are those...have those been resolved at this point when it comes to, you know, the contractors that are processing a lot of these test results, these record number of test results?

>> Certainly, and so yes.

Our partners that our labs have now gotten to within that contractual 48 hour turnaround time.

And so people should be getting regardless of where they're tested, their results back in that timeframe now, and so things are looking better at that point.

...part of this weekend's data processing issue were some of those backlog results, just all the volume getting into the system, <Gavin> ...Dr Traxler, when we talk about, that backlog during that time DHEC was recommending folks to get another test, If they could, are there are going to be any issues with double counting?

Or is that what's also being worked out right now?

>> We always go through a process where we do duplicate the data.

So, we make sure that there aren't duplicates, that people are only being counted if they're tested once.

So even if that test result gets comes to us from say, their doctor, and the lab, still it's only going to count as one test.

...if they test positive, two different days back to back, for example, that, that still is one case type of thing.

and so that de-duplication is part of the all of the process that all of this data goes through, as it's coming into our system, and as it gets processed, then for us to put it on our dashboards, back out.

<Gavin>...but you're still having issues with the negativity, - Sorry, the percent positive rate, because of the negative tests coming in.

What's the latest on that?

Why is that still lagging?

<Dr.

Traxler> Just the volume of negatives, thankfully, is much larger than the volume of positives.

And so certainly inputting the positives was the priority, as we overcame this, this issue over the last few days.

...I think we're very close to having now all of the negatives back in and would expect, then the percent positive rate to resume being reported here in the next couple of days.

<Gavin> Dr. Traxler, where are we right now in this surge?

January has been quite the month.

I know.

We saw a case rate high of 115,000, the week of January 15.

Last week, I know the numbers are still going in, But if you base it off of what's been reported so far, seems like it's about half of what that week prior was so or do you see some positive signs here, some positive metrics when we're looking at this current surge?

>> So, I think it is still very early, and it's hard to say for certain that we have peaked, for example, or on the down slope but there are encouraging signs.

...we have seen even with the data, as you're pointing out from a couple of weeks ago, that, that rate of increase even was slowing.

So we were seeing less of a rate of increase.

And so I am hopeful, but cautiously hopeful that we are on, you know, on the improving side of this.

<Gavin> And how about death rates as well, when we look at previous searches from last year?

I mean, those would just spike up?

You know, I know they lag, of course, and we're looking at, we're talking about a record case, week just only two weeks ago, but still these numbers aren't jumping at the rate that we would have thought especially since Omicron has been on the scene since early December in South Carolina.

What do you see in there and are you equally encouraged?

<Dr.

Traxler> Absolutely, and I'm smiling because yes, that has been the one improvement I would say on this surge is that it is thankfully not appearing to be as severe of illness for even the people that get infected, many more people are getting infected, and we know that this is much more easily spread.

But Omicron doesn't seem to be causing as severe of illness.

So we have seen very significant numbers of hospitalizations and deaths, but proportionally they're not as high as they were during other surges related to our case rates, and so that is encouraging.

We're also seeing evidence that across the country, the length of stay, for example, for those that do have to get hospitalized, is shorter.

So even amongst the severe cases, maybe they're not as severe.

So and I think that that's be reflected in our death data, and you are correct.

We would just now be starting to see from two weeks ago potential, you know, increase in those deaths, but I'm optimistic that we still aren't going to see the same rate of increase that we saw with cases because it is less severe <Gavin> Then Dr., when we look at - you talk about hospitalizations and obviously, you know, greater number of cases do lead to greater number of hospitalizations, But what are you hearing from hospitals right now?

I know these rates when it talks about admissions are still going up and the number of people hospitalized, continued to jump week to week, but what are you hearing from them?

Do they have enough people?

Are there any concerns about any potential staffing shortages?

What's going on there?

>> So, certainly we stay in very frequent communication with the hospitals throughout the state and they really are heroes of this pandemic.

I just want to say they have faced staffing challenges and they have overcome and just kudos to all of them who are working, you know, so many long hours, extra shifts and so forth because they're the ones literally keeping us all alive.

But they are...holding their own and they are being able to treat patients I do want to reiterate to folks that the ER is there for emergencies and so to please not go there looking for just a test or looking, you know, if you have mild symptoms, save the ER for people that urgently need care.

<Gavin> Gotcha, and with about a minute left, I want to ask you just about this new sub variant of Omicron.

Should we be...worried about it?

Will it lead to another surge?

What's the latest on that?

>> So, we have not seen that much of it in the United States yet, but we have seen some.

However, this has been around for a while now, actually, in other parts of the world.

There are 10s of 1000s of cases in the world, just not as many in the United States.

There is still I mean, data that is emerging, they are still watching very closely these other parts of the world to see how this behaves, whether it's ...it's BA2 or whether it's an entirely new variant, you know, until we get enough people vaccinated, yes, we need to always be on guard and preparing for for the next one and what could be the next surge, depending on what its specific pattern of mutations look like.

So, it may not be this one, but there will be another variant of some type if we don't all get vaccinated.

<Gavin> Hopefully it's going to be less severe like this current one is too.

So, we'll be watching.

We'll be checking in with you.

That's DHEC Director of Public Health.

Dr. Brannon Traxler.

Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>>To stay up to date with the latest news throughout the week.

Check out the South Carolina Lede.

It's a podcast that I host twice a week that you can find on South Carolina public radio.org or wherever you find podcasts.

For South Carolina ETV, I'm Gavin Jackson.

Be well, South Carolina ♪ closing music ♪ ♪