Print Page

Pour choice: Voters to choose how they like their booze

Mini-bottles of liquor line the shelves behind the bar at Applebee's on Chestnut Street Friday afternoon. On Nov. 2, the voters of Orangeburg and the rest of the state will choose whether or not to keep the tiny bottles of liquor or move to regular-sized bottles like the rest of the country. CHRISTOPHER HUFF/T&D

Free pour or mini-bottles?

That is the question, and voters of Orangeburg and the rest of the state will come up with the answer Nov. 2 as they will choose whether or not to keep the tiny bottles of liquor or move to regular-sized bottles like the rest of the country.

A sample survey of Orangeburg restaurants and bars reveal there is division over whether the mini-bottles should be eliminated.

Orangeburg's Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar management praised the decision to put the referendum on the ballot.

"When we are dealing with looking at the mini-bottle referendum, we are just looking for a choice," said Kent Whitfield, restaurant general manager. "Some drinks we have now are almost two ounces. For two or three drinks, it can put somebody on the roads in a state of intoxication."

If the referendum proposal passes, the Legislature would have to craft new rules for liquor drinks, and new ways to tax them.

Supporters of free-pour liquor say drinks will be cheaper and roads safer because shots from normal-size bottles are much smaller.

Mini-bottle supporters argue that switching to free-pour will leave taxpayers stuck with the tab because it will result in lower tax revenue. They also say bartenders could water down drinks.

Whitfield echoed the attraction that cheaper drinks will have under the free-pour system on the state's tourism.

"Tourism detracts because of our drink prices," Whitfield said, noting that one can purchase a Kalua beverage for about $2 less in surrounding states.

And with regards to the charge of watering down drink content with the free-pour, Whitfield said that much of that already goes on. Melted ice always has a watering down impact on the alcoholic content, he said.

"The Mothers Against Drunk Driving are for it," Whitefield said, citing statistics that show the state among the highest per capita in incidents of drunk driving. "We are definitely for free pour."

House of Pizza owner Debbie Stiliandis hopes voters approve keeping the mini-bottles.

"The mini-bottles are easier for inventory and to keep up with," Stiliandis said. "I think it could control keeping up with the liquor count and the possibility of somebody having too much."

Stiliandis said she fears that, with free-pour, individuals may be given three or four different liquors and that the cheaper free-pour method will, in turn, contribute to individuals having more drinks.

"If someone is drinking, they will drink according to their budget," Stiliandis said, discounting the claim that the minibottles have more liquor content. "It depends on who is pouring the liquor. You will have some (bartenders) that will have the option to give them a lot more."

The referendum on mini-bottle elimination also received support from some consumers.

Ed Molphus said that, as a Northeast native, free-pour has been all he has ever known, and he thinks South Carolina should adopt the same.

"Free-pour benefits the clientele as to the variety and the type of drinks they can have," Molphus said. "Right now ... some mixed drinks, especially the complicated ones ... a lot of the bartenders don't do it because it requires half a mini-bottle here and they just won't do it."

Molphus said the argument that free-pour will lessen alcoholic content can be specious.

"It depends on the bartender," he said. "There are two forms they can use; they can use directly into a shot glass or they have a meter they can pass into another bottle. It would not be a factor."

Nicole Mack said she agrees with the concept of limiting alcohol intake which the elimination of the mini-bottles is said to accomplish.

"I will vote to do away with them because it is more alcohol," Mack said, adding that free-pour would most likely not impact liquor sales. "They will still buy it. I don't think that it will stop people from coming to the bar if they do away with it. I think it is a good idea to get rid of it."

The mini-bottle came to South Carolina in the 1970s as part of a compromise that brought liquor by the drink to the state. Those opposed to drinking figured the 1.5-ounce bottles then used would encourage people to drink less.

At the time, South Carolina was one of almost two dozen states using the tiny bottles. But over the years, mini-bottles increased to 1.7 ounces as the makers went metric, and free-pour portions declined to an ounce.

On the state level, the proposed mini-bottle amendment has not been without some controversy.

The South Carolina Hospitality Association sued the Palmetto Hospitality Association to stop using its current name. The two organizations are on different sides of the mini-bottle issue.

And on Friday, the South Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club announced its aim to abolish the mini-bottles, citing environmental reasons.

In a press release, the environmental advocacy group states that mini-bottles are "a waste of resources and a burden on solid waste landfills."

"The bottles of two ounces or less cannot be recycled like the larger liquor bottles used in other states," the press release states. "It is estimated that 72 million mini-bottles clog landfills every year in South Carolina."