Session's significance seems caught up in tattoos, liquor

AIKEN - Fiscal discipline and educational funding might have been central issues for South Carolina legislators this year, but in the end it might be booze and tattoos that form the more memorable legacy of the session that just ended.

ADVERTISEMENT

Have a thought? Go to the Forums or Chat.

Subscribe  E-mail this story  Write a letter to the Editor  Printer-friendly version  Get news on your PDA  Get e-mail headlines

When the final bell rang at 5 p.m. Thursday, only three of Gov. Mark Sanford's 13 top agenda items had cleared both houses of the Legislature. Many became bogged down in the Senate, including his proposal to cut state income taxes.

Democrats said the session was largely a waste of time.

"I felt like, in the end, the Governor's Office did nothing and the General Assembly did nothing,'' said state Sen. Brad Hutto, an outspoken Democrat from Orangeburg.

"It was a do-nothing General Assembly led by a do-nothing governor.''

Rep. Roland Smith, the Republican leader of the Aiken County delegation, disagreed, pointing to 200 pieces of legislation passed in five months of work in Columbia.

"I try to stay out of partisan politics, but on this issue I can't,'' Mr. Smith said. "We were able to pass some things in spite of (the Democrats).''

Mr. Smith says he's proudest of a new educational funding package that raises per-pupil allocations and pumps $114 million in additional lottery money into public schools.

"Is it at the level we want it to be?'' Mr. Smith said. "No.''

But education and paying off the state's debt don't grab the public's attention like mini bottles and tattoo parlors, and two pieces of quirky state law now appear destined for repeal. Mr. Sanford is expected to repeal the state's 40-year-old ban on tattooing, and a referendum will be held in November to decide the fate of the mini bottle.

Opponents of mini bottles say their uniform 1.7 ounces of liquor force South Carolina's bars and restaurants to pour stronger drinks, which can lead to more alcohol-related accidents on state highways.

Polls show voters will likely cast their ballots against the mini bottle when the referendum comes up in November.

Not all merchants are in favor of banishing the mini bottle.

Lain Bradford, the owner of Harvard Wine and Beverage in Aiken, wrote in a recent opinion piece that the state could lose tax revenue and be forced to raise taxes on all spirits.

He also believes drink prices might not reflect the amount of liquor being poured in the glass if the mini bottle law is repealed.

"This is like going to the gas station and putting $20 worth of gas in you car and paying the attendant $30,'' he wrote.

The Legislature lifted the tattoo ban out of concern for public health and the risks underground tattoo parlors have posed in South Carolina. Still, some lawmakers weren't in favor of the repeal.

"I was not a real supporter of tattoos,'' Mr. Smith said.

"Hopefully, the counties and cities will be able to regulate them and not let the parlors sprout up all over the place.''

Aiken city and county officials are drafting proposed ordinances that limit where tattoo parlors can locate.

County Councilman Willar Hightower said the public should inform officials on how to regulate tattoo parlors.

"There should be some restrictions, but it is a legal business, so we must provide someplace in the county they can operate,'' he said.

Reach Stephen Gurr at (803) 648-1395, ext. 110, or stephen.gurr@augustachronicle.com. KEY LEGISLATION