Sch. Dist. No. 1, 311 S.C. 335, 340, 428 S.E.2d 886, 888 (1993)). The court should not consider the particular clause in isolation, but should read it in conjunction with the purpose of the whole statute and the policy of the law. Prince, 335 S.C. at 472, 517 S.E.2d at 232. Statutory provisions should be read so as to be consistent with the purpose of the statute. Id. Furthermore, statutes that are part of the same act must be read together and sections that are part of the same general statutory scheme must be construed together and each given effect, if reasonable. Id. Section 17-25-50 requires the trial court to combine prior offenses “arising out of simultaneous acts committed in the course of a single incident.” State v. Boyd, 288 S.C. 206, 209, 341 S.E.2d 144, 146 (Ct.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). In State v. Muldrow, 259 S.C. 414, 192 S.E.2d
holding  1227a2bi limits the meaning of controlled substance for removal purposes to the substances controlled under  802 holding that the legislature intended for multiple punishments when a defendant makes a single act of possessing different types of controlled substances holding that under section 172550 two prior violations of the controlled substances act occurring in the same incident should be treated as one offense and noting that if multiple prior convictions are obtained for violations of the controlled substance act unrelated to one another and not arising out of a single incident there is no prohibition against counting each conviction separately for sentencing purposes recognizing legislature knows difference between prosecution and conviction by noting former jeopardy provisions of code  192294 provide that if the same act be a violation of two or more statutes  conviction under one of such statutes  shall be a bar to a prosecution or proceeding under the other or others and holding that if the legislature had intended that the statutory bar apply to  felony cases tried in the circuit court after the resolution in district court of misdemeanor charges arising out of the same act it would have provided that a conviction for a criminal offense arising out of one act would bar a later conviction for another offense arising out of the same act holding the first question for purposes of a double jeopardy analysis is whether congress expressed its intent concerning multiple convictions at a single trial for different statutory violations arising from the same act or transaction