South Carolina's constitution should not mandate stiff drinks, and that anomaly can be changed in the voting booth Tuesday.

A "yes" vote on state referendum Question No. 1 would give the General Assembly and private businesses choice in the matter.

That choice is needed because right now South Carolina bars and restaurants are required to serve drinks with 36 percent more liquor in them than the national average. There should be no such requirement in law, and especially not in the state constitution.

The constitution requires on-premise liquor distribution from minibottles. That was a good idea when it was enacted in the early 1970s. It enabled bars and restaurants to serve liquor, replacing the "brown bagging" practice in which customers brought their own bottles and bought setups. At the time, about a dozen states used minibottles; all but South Carolina since have changed. And that was before distillers switched to the metric system, so minibottles had a more reasonable amount of alcohol per drink -- about 1.5 ounces, rather than today's 1.7 ounces. Nationally, the average drink today contains 1.25 ounces of liquor, and South Carolina needs to head in that direction. At the very least, bars and restaurants should have an option, and a "yes" vote will give it to them. Minibottles are no longer a good idea.

There is good reason that a "yes" vote is urged by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the S.C. Council of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Authorities and the S.C. Highway Safety Coalition.

They cite the state's sad distinction of having the highest per capita number of alcohol-related highway deaths in the country. Collisions caused by drunken driving caused 158 deaths last year.

It is naive to think those tragedies can be wiped away by bubbling in a "yes" vote on Tuesday, but it couldn't hurt. The fact is, South Carolina serves the stiffest drinks and has the most dangerous highways. With national standards headed toward less tolerance of drunken driving, South Carolina's constitutional mandate that bar patrons be plied with 36 percent more liquor than the national average stands out like a red face. The minibottle requirement is an anachronism that can and should be corrected.

If voters approve the constitutional change, it then will be up to the legislature to make sure the state doesn't take a hit in lost tax revenue. That easily can be achieved, primarily through an additional 5 percent sales tax on mixed drinks. That, coupled with other taxes attached to liquor sales and distribution, would more than make up for money collected on minibottles, which are taxed at a quarter per bottle.

The state's chief economist says General Fund revenue would increase without the mandated use of minibottles. An analysis by a University of South Carolina economist also projects immediate higher tax revenue. That analysis goes further, with 20-year projections showing tax revenue more than doubling if a per-drink sales tax is enacted because revenue automatically increases with inflation, with no required increase in liquor consumption.

Gov. Mark Sanford endorsed a "yes" vote this week, citing a different set of dollars and cents. He said greater highway safety would save the state money. Alcohol-related accidents cost the state about $2.1 billion a year, the governor said, citing statistics used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

We urge a "yes" vote on state referendum Question No. 1 to repeal South Carolina's outdated minibottle mandate.