The South Carolina Education Lottery offers several draw games for those aiming to win big.

COLUMBIA, SC (WMBF) – South Carolina is cracking down on nitrous oxide, banning its sale to minors and setting criminal penalties for violations.

The new law (S. 751), which Gov. Henry McMaster signed on May 18, prohibits the sale of nitrous oxide and nitrous oxide products to anyone under 18, and retailers must require identification to verify customers’ ages.

Retailers are also prohibited from selling flavored nitrous oxide products or marketing nitrous oxide for recreational use. Tobacco retailers are banned from selling nitrous oxide products entirely.

The law aims to prevent the recreational misuse of nitrous oxide.

Nitrous oxide is a colorless gas with several legitimate uses, such as medical applications as laughing gas, pressurizing whipped cream canisters, and boosting automotive engine performance, all of which remain legal under the new law.

However, when used recreationally, it can cause a brief euphoric and dissociative effect and is sometimes abused through small cartridges originally designed for whipped cream dispensers.

Prolonged or heavy use can cause oxygen deprivation, nerve damage (B12 depletion) and, in extreme cases, death.

Since McMaster signed the bill, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division has begun implementing inspections and enforcement actions.

Penalties for violations

Illegal possession or distribution of nitrous oxide is now a misdemeanor.

• First offense: A fine up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to six months
• Second offense: A fine up to $5,000 and/or up to one year in prison
• Subsequent offenses: A fine up to $10,000 and/or three years in prison

Businesses violating the law may also face administrative penalties, including suspension or revocation of licenses or permits.

Feel more informed, prepared, and connected with WMBF. For more free content like this, download our apps. Have feedback that can help us improve? Click here.

The U.S. military attacked a boat accused of smuggling drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Tuesday, killing one man and leaving two survivors, as the Trump administration continues its monthslong campaign against alleged traffickers in Latin America.

The latest attack brings the number of people who have been killed in boat strikes by the U.S. military to at least 208 since the Trump administration began targeting those it calls “narcoterrorists” in early September.

As with most of the military’s statements on strikes in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea, U.S. Southern Command said it targeted the alleged drug traffickers along known smuggling routes. The military did not provide evidence that the vessel was ferrying drugs. A video posted on X showed a boat traveling in the water before being hit by the strike and bursting into flames.

Southern Command said it “immediately notified U.S. Coast Guard to activate the Search and Rescue system for the survivors.”

President Donald Trump has said the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with cartels in Latin America and has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and fatal overdoses claiming American lives. But his administration has offered little evidence to support its claims of killing “narcoterrorists.”

Critics have questioned the overall legality of the boat strikes as well as their effectiveness, in part because the fentanyl behind many fatal overdoses is typically trafficked to the U.S. over land from Mexico, where it is produced with chemicals imported from China and India.

The strikes have drawn intense scrutiny from some Democratic lawmakers and military legal scholars. The U.S. military’s first strike in early September drew particular concern from some lawmakers and those who study military law.

Two men on the boat initially survived the attack that killed nine others, and they were clinging to the wreckage when the vessel was struck again, killing them. The White House confirmed the follow-up strike, insisting it was done “in self-defense” to ensure the boat was destroyed and in accordance with the laws of armed conflict.

But some legal scholars said a second strike killing survivors would have been illegal under any circumstance, armed conflict or not.

The Pentagon’s watchdog said in May that it plans to look into whether the U.S. military followed an established targeting framework when carrying out the strikes.

However, the evaluation is focused specifically on what’s known as the six-phase Joint Targeting Cycle and not on the legality of the strikes, the inspector general’s office said.

Copyright 2026 NPR