A bill that would allow South Carolinians to eliminate liquor laws from the state Constitution may not pass this year because of time and economics.

A week ago the S.C. House Constitutional Laws subcommittee approved a minibottle referendum bill. The referendum is required to change the Constitution to allow legislators to establish methods for liquor sales.

This year, however, the state is in a financial crunch and every penny counts. While several bills await action on the issue, lawmakers still will closely scrutinize the estimated $20 million or more generated by minibottle taxes.

Supporters of a change in the constitutional provision approved in 1972 say it is a health and safety issue. South Carolinians are first in many life-threatening diseases, including alcoholism. The state is first in heart disease, first in heart attacks, first in cases of diabetes, high on a list of cancer risks. These firsts are a result of diet, smoking and alcohol intake.

Minibottle critics say drinks are more potent than those made in free-pour states. In free-pour states, drinks contain 1 to 1.25 ounces of liquor. The 1.7-ounce minibottle provides a uniformly more potent drink.

Beaufort restaurant owners support use of minibottles for convenience, consistency, quality, guarantee of brand ordered, inventory control and known size of each serving. A Beaufort liquor store owner says linking the minibottle as the cause for drunken driving does not make sense. "In any free-pour state, competition and bartenders' tips govern the drink size, thus making it comparable or larger than the minibottle-size drink," wrote Bill Massalon, owner of Bill's Liquor Stores. He correctly points out that beer drinkers and wine drinkers also overindulge and drive, and that "if South Carolina has a problem with drunken driving, education is the answer, not the size of the bottle. Anyone who drinks to get drunk will get drunk, regardless of the size bottle."

Those are valid points, but the large questions revolves around whether South Carolina, with so many problems, should mandate a stronger drink. Education is a key component of reducing dependence on alcohol, but so is a reduction in the mandated size of hard liquor drinks, which often can contain more than 5 ounces of liquor, depending on the specific drink ordered.

This is an issue voters would decide and legislators should give them the opportunity. Unfortunately, the legislative session ends June 5 and other important issues must be decided, which means another year of delay.