IN RECENT YEARS, the General Assembly has slowly been stepping up our state’s fight against drunken driving, with a number of laws designed to make it easier to get and keep drunks off the highways. But one thing legislators haven’t changed is our requirement that bars serve extra-stiff drinks to their patrons.

Perhaps it’s a coincidence that we’re the only state in the nation with such a law, and we also lead the nation in the rate of alcohol-related highway deaths — and that our rates are growing faster than all but one other state.

We doubt it.

Our minibottle law is bad enough with simple drinks, which we require to be a third stronger than the national average. But buy a drink that requires the mixture of two or three liquors, and the effect is compounded; those drinks can end up three or four times stronger than normal. This creates a huge problem for out-of-state visitors unaccustomed to such a punch, and it’s no small consideration for South Carolinians.

That’s why we’ve been so encouraged by efforts in the Legislature to remove this pro-drunkenness provision. After finally coming up with a taxing formula that trumped trumped-up objections that the change would result in a loss of tax revenue, the House and Senate both have passed legislation calling for a referendum this fall on removing a requirement from our state constitution that liquor be sold in 1.7-ounce minibottles. Enabling legislation both bodies have passed would allow bars to continue selling the minibottles and for the first time make it legal for individuals to buy them at liquor stores. We’d just as soon do away with them entirely, but all indications are that most if not all bars would stop using them if they were not required.

Unfortunately, each body passing the legislation isn’t enough, because the House and the Senate passed different bills (those bills contain minor differences, as well, but that’s less of a problem). That means that before the two bodies can even try to work out a compromise, one has to go back through the whole process of passing the other body’s bill.

To its credit, the Senate has made an effort to move in that direction. Last month, Sen. Wes Hayes convinced fellow senators to agree unanimously to recall the House measures from committee, so the Senate can pass them. But Senate rules allow a single senator to block a vote, and Sen. Robert Ford has objected to votes on the minibottle legislation. Given the backup seat belt opponents have caused in the Senate, it’s difficult to foresee the Senate getting past this obstacle.

So if we want to move our liquor laws into the 21st century, it’s going to take House action. That shouldn’t be difficult, since only 10 representatives opposed the constitutional amendment and the enabling legislation when the House passed both earlier this year. And it’s something that needs to be done.

Argue all you want over whether it’s right for the state to enforce a seat belt law (and, frankly, we don’t see that there’s any reasonable argument against it); this is an entirely different matter. This is about whether the state will force those who drink liquor to drink stronger drinks than normal, and perhaps more than they even realize. This is about whether the state will continue to be complicit in drunken driving. Our laws have been contributing to the deaths and injuries of innocent people for too long. It’s time to change that.