So long and good riddance to the minibottle. But why
did state lawmakers insist on preserving a sweetheart deal for liquor
retailers?
Finally, after years of lobbying, opponents of the minibottle wrapped
up a campaign to get rid of the diminutive 1.7-ounce containers. It
required a state referendum to change the state Constitution and a vote
by the General Assembly to reverse a requirement in place since 1974
that all liquor sold at restaurants and bars be dispensed from
individual minibottles.
Last week, a compromise bill was sent to the governor for his likely
signature. The bill will allow bartenders the option of pouring drinks
from a larger bottle beginning Jan. 1, 2006. It also will institute a 5
percent drink tax to make up for taxes on minibottles.
The change will allow bartenders to make two-liquor drinks at a more
reasonable price. And it will mean that many drinks will contain less
alcohol. Minibottles contain about half an ounce more liquor than the
standard hand-poured drink, one reason public safety organizations such
as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers supported the campaign to get rid of
the minibottle.
But one provision in the final version of the bill is bothersome. The
House bill would have allowed both retail liquor stores and wholesale
distributors to deliver liquor. The Senate bill limited delivery
privileges to retail liquor stores. In the end, the Senate version
prevailed.
This appears to be a big wet kiss for retailers, as wholesalers are
frozen out of direct sales to owners. We can think of no reason why
wholesalers shouldn't be allowed to sell directly to bars and
restaurants, cutting out the middle man. Reducing the extra cost could
benefit owners and their patrons alike.
Nonetheless, we are relieved that South Carolina no longer is the
only state in the nation requiring use of the minibottle. Toast state
lawmakers with a free-pour drink.
