The irony of the minibottles in which bourbon, gin and other spirits are dispensed in bars and restaurants is that they originally were conceived as a way to discourage excessive drinking. That's why the compromise that ended prohibition in South Carolina denied drinking establishments the right to pour drinks freely out of full-sized bottles of liquor.

But most minibottles contain 1.75 ounces of liquor - a third to a quarter per drink more than bartenders in most states dispense to their customers. In a tourism environment such as the Grand Strand, where relaxation is the objective of most restaurant customers, that's way too big a jolt. Minibottles also frustrate the making of bar concoctions with more than one liquor and render such drinks costly.

Tourism and hospitality leaders are trying once again to end the reign of the minibottle in South Carolina and allow S.C. bartenders to pour drinks freely out of big bottles. And once again, the state's liquor distributors - whose political power has proved awesome - appear to be blocking legislation that would end South Carolina's long run as the only state requiring that bar drinks be dispensed in this fashion.

We say "appear" because the chief barrier to a minibottle bill for which there appears to be majority support in the S.C. House and S.C. Senate is a filibuster by Sen. Phil Leventis, D-Sumter. The minibottle bill to which Leventis objects provides for a 5 percent cocktail tax collected at the point of sale.

Leventis proposes an amendment that would allow distributors to collect the tax when retailers - bar and restaurant owners - buy full-size bottles with which to stock their bars. He's filibustering to get his way, and under Senate rules, only a two-thirds vote can push him aside to allow the Senate to vote on the bill.

Why is he doing this? Leventis depicts his amendment as a safeguard on state-tax collections. The implication here is that drinking establishments would probably cheat if they - not the distributors - collect the tax.

Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't take a Ph.D. in political science to perceive the win-win position into which Leventis is trying to put his liquor distributor friends.

If the filibuster holds and the minibottle bill dies - again - they retain their grip on a mother lode of profits: There are a limited number of distributors statewide, and only they can sell minibottles to bars. If the legislature accepts his amendment to get the bill through to passage, the distributors still win because they'll collect the tax up front and have the use of that money until the the deadline arrives for shipping it to the S.C. Department of Revenue. This float gives them a new source of profit on interest earned while the money is in the bank.

None of this is to suggest that this overdue reform won't happen this year, thanks to Leventis' parliamentary maneuvering. Senators could delay work on the bill in hopes Leventis will give up. Or they could accept his amendment, then work later in the session to get rid of it in conference committee with the House, which has a minibottle bill of its own.

But Grand Strand legislators and S.C. hospitality lobbyists should sustain the pressure for ending the reign of the minibottle this year. The minibottle encourages people to drink more than they should and is a needless irritant for tourism and hospitality businesses, the state's No. 1 industry. It's time for its stranglehold on drink sales to end.

email this

print this