For five months, voters heard arguments about drunken driving, cocktail quality, recycling, legal planning and tax collection as two groups worked to influence the decision on whether to kick minibottles out of the state’s constitution.

Tuesday night, with most of the precincts reporting, the majority of voters were saying “yes” to removing the minibottle law.

Steve Pittman, a Columbia resident watching election returns at Rockaway Athletic Club on Rosewood Drive, said the minibottle was outdated.

“The airlines and South Carolina are the only places using minibottles these days,” Pittman said. “It’s better for the customers and better for the bars to remove the minibottle restriction.”

The “yes” vote means the S.C. General Assembly must rewrite the state’s liquor laws in 2005.

A “no” vote would have meant drinkers would have continued downing cocktails poured from the 1.7-ounce minibottles.

South Carolina is the last state to require minibottles, the result of 1970s legislation allowing bars and restaurants in the state to serve liquor. Right now, the minibottles are taxed at 25 cents each, along with some other fees. In 2003, more than 75 million minibottles were sold, earning the state a gross tax revenue of $49.6 million.

While critics and supporters of minibottles used a myriad of arguments to sway voters, the real issue behind the debate was money.

Those who wanted to keep minibottles included the 58 wholesalers who hold Class B licenses to sell them to restaurants and bars.

On the other hand, bars and restaurant owners stand to make more money by serving liquor poured from large bottles.

”I really do believe it will reduce liquor costs,” said Paul Whitlark, co-owner at Rockaway. “When I’m buying minibottles, a lot of the cost difference is the packaging. That’s where we’re getting killed.”

Redesigning the bar to accommodate larger liquor bottles will be no problem, Whitlark said.

Opponents of the minibottles included Gov. Mark Sanford, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Hospitality Association of South Carolina and at least two chambers of commerce. Over the weekend, those groups put their names on ads blaming the minibottles for the state’s high number of drunken-driving fatalities.

They said drinks poured from the 1.7-ounce minibottle are stronger than “free pour” drinks, which usually contain one ounce of liquor.

The hospitality association also said minibottles made many cocktails, such as margaritas, too expensive.

On the other side of the argument, the liquor wholesalers and distributors formed the Palmetto Hospitality Association. The group ran an ad campaign telling voters it would be irresponsible to vote “yes” because there was no law in place to handle the change.

Last weekend, the group started running a disclaimer with its ads after a judge ruled their use of “hospitality association” was deceiving.

The lobbying failed.

Suzie Riga, vice president of Green’s liquor stores and a minibottle supporter, said she’s still not sure if voters were clear on the issue.

Now, the liquor industry and the state Legislature must get together to draft new laws, Riga said.

“We’ll see how we can get together with all sides to see what’s good for the state,” she said. “It’s got to be as good for state tax revenue as the minibottle was.”