Gov. Mark Sanford was in town to do a ceremonial signing of the minibottle bill.

He and other supporters call it a life-saving measure that should help combat the state's high number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities.

The ceremonial signing took place Thursday afternoon at the Liberty Tap Room and Grill on Kings Highway.

Sanford officially signed the free-pour bill into law earlier this month. It allows liquor stores with special licenses to sell to bars, and they can begin delivery of minibottles immediately. Bars previously had to pick up their own supplies. Free-pouring, use of larger bottles, starts Jan. 1.

Bars will have the option to continue to use minibottles. Minibottles are 1.7 ounces. The standard cocktail contains 1.25 ounces of liquor.

"As a state, we should set our standard," Sanford said. "We don't want drunk drivers in the state. We should leave it up to the individuals on how you get there."

He said South Carolina has ranked in the top three states for the past three years for alcohol-related traffic fatalities.

J.T. Tew, who does public relations for the Tap Room, said it gives the bar the option not to over-serve alcohol in mixed drinks.

The bar plans to go to free pour.

"We want to cater to our customers and ensure their safety," said Charlotte Bruton, marketing director for the Tap Room. "When people come to the state, they are not used to the minibottles."

After the news conference, The Sun News talked with Sanford about the free-pour law and other local issues, including Inez Tenenbaum's defense of the state of S.C. schools, the Santee Cooper hearings and his political future.

Question | What impact do you think this free-pour option will have on the state in general and on those who buy mixed drinks specifically? Do you think prices for mixed drinks will drop now that bars don't have to use minibottles?

Answer | Generally, it will have an impact on the quality of life in South Carolina and the cost of living. If the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities goes down, people will have less fear of being on the road with drunk drivers.

Specifically, it will save lives and some money on two fronts: It will repeal hidden taxes on consumers that choose to buy a drink on the Grand Strand and elsewhere, and help reduce alcohol-related accidents, which in turn would lower insurance premiums.

As far as the prices dropping, time will obviously tell. That is the intent of the bill. That is the hope.

Q | What is your reaction to Inez Tenenbaum's response on the failed Put Parents in Charge legislation being a sign that residents believe in public education and that advocates of the legislation are anti-public education? Why did it fail and what will you do differently do prevent it from failing again? [A similar version already has been filed and supporters are gearing up for a third year of pushing for the legislation, more than six months before the 2006 session begins.]

Also, what is your reaction to Tenenbaum saying the General Assembly should mandate funding to solve the problems in the eight poor school districts that have sued the legislature. What do you think the solution is, or do you agree with Tenenbaum?

A | I strongly disagree with it. If you're for choice in education, then you're against public education. I believe God fundamentally makes every person unique and that he makes every child unique. The idea of having many choices out there fits with the fact there is diversity of kids out there. Monopolies don't work efficiently. Innovation and change is fundamental for improving schools.

Where money is part of the solution to education, it's not the only cure to saving education. Reform is key as well to improving education.

[The legislation] failed because change comes slowly and with difficulty. I will push for it again next year. I need to spend more time out there talking to people on why it's important.

We consistently said we are open to the idea of funding through a choice-based society.

Q | Given the reaction to your proposals for Santee Cooper, is there anything you'd do differently if you had it to do over again? And what do you expect to happen next with the public utility?

A | We're pushing for the same thing, which is that it shouldn't be a separate island of government not tied in to what else is going on in South Carolina.

As far as what we expect to happen next, my hands are tied. The bill has been signed.

[The measure limits the governor's power over appointees to the board. Sanford vetoed the bill, but the veto was overwhelmingly overridden.]

It's a moot point because I cannot do anything one way or the other.

Q | You vetoed a measure that provided $7 million for the Myrtle Beach international trade center. [The legislature later overrode the veto.] Do you think it has merit, and if so, what's the best way for the city to secure state support for the effort?

A | We're not against the trade center. We're for setting up a standard that we do for other tourism-related facilities. There's no rate of return. We have to set up parameters for a rate of return.

Q | Will you seek re-election next year?

A | Yes.