South Carolina voters should seize
their chance this November to repeal the mandatory use of minibottles in
all state bars and restaurants.
This is the only state using the little bottles, which typically are
associated with drinks served on airplanes.
There are a number of problems with the minibottles:
Mixed drinks are way too strong in South Carolina. While the nation is
pushing to lower the legal threshold for drunken driving, it is dumb for
South Carolina bars to ply customers with more booze per drink than any
other state. The minibottles hold 1.7 ounces of liquor while nationally
the restaurant industry standard portion is 1.25 ounces per drink.
No one should be so naive as to think getting rid of the minibottle
will rid the roads of drunk drivers. After all, the change would do
nothing to address beer and wine consumption. But highway safety has to be
part of the discussion when the state mandating the stiffest mixed drinks
in America also has the nation's second highest death rate for
alcohol-related traffic accidents. That could be one reason Mothers
Against Drunk Drivers is among a number of organizations that want to see
the minibottle disappear.
State tax on the minibottle is 25 cents per bottle. By switching to a
sales tax at the point of purchase, the tax revenue is not a fixed sum but
floats with the cost of the drink. That would enable the tax revenue to
keep pace with inflation.
The minibottles are sold by a handful of distributors at a set number
of liquor stores statewide. These are the people who like the status quo.
State policy should be based on a what is good for the entire state, not a
few businesses.
The size of liquor bottles has no business being written into the
state constitution. It is absurd that the state constitution requires
mixed drinks to come from bottles of 2 ounces or less. That was passed
about 30 years ago, ending the era when people took their own bottles to
the bar. It was supposed to ensure uniformity in mixed drinks and the
taxes collected on them. Now it has taken 10 years to get the proposed
change in the constitution before the voters.
It would be a shame not to put the sorry debate out of its misery once
and for all. Voters should send a signal to legislators to keep such
piddling matters out of the constitution.
