They've been cussed out by 80-year-old gentlemen and laughed at by silver-haired ladies, argued with by cane-bearing grandmas and deserted by grumbling old vagrants.
Liquor store owners, upholding a unique and controversial 3-month-old Annapolis liquor board regulation, have borne the brunt of complaints and confusion from customers who call the city's mandatory carding law an exercise in absurdity.
The regulation - which became law quietly without the notice of many store owners, customers or City Council members - requires liquor stores, but not restaurants or bars, to see identification with every alcohol purchase, regardless of the customer's white-streaked mane, wrinkled brow or, well, maturity.
"I don't think it was a very well-thought-out idea," said 70-year-old Sal Teta, after flashing his license to a clerk at Bay Ridge Wine and Spirits. "I think what they ought to do is stop inhaling whatever they were smoking when they passed it."
City Alderman Ellen O. Moyer calls the measure an "over-reach" and is planning to introduce a resolution at the council meeting Monday asking the board to reconsider. The law, like all liquor violations in the city, carries a maximum penalty of $1,000 or revocation of license.
"What is the real public good being served?" Moyer asked. "I have had people in my ward voice bafflement, outrage, perplexion and frustration."
The regulation is the only one of its kind in Maryland, according to Charles Ehart, director of the alcohol and tobacco tax division of the state comptroller's office, which regulates alcoholic beverages at the state level.
"I've never heard of [a regulation] like it in the state, nor have I heard of one like that in the country, though I can't swear there isn't," he said. "I applaud the motive of what they are trying to accomplish, though I'm not sure they didn't stretch a little too far."
Like many in the city who think carding everybody could work to catch underage individuals trying to buy alcohol, Ehart questions why bars and restaurants were left out.
"If you are going to protect [against] sales to minors, it appears to me that whatever rule applies, should apply across the board," he said.
But the reason Annapolis' busy bars and restaurants were left out is quite simple: They didn't want it, said Charles Grayston, liquor board member and former chair.
It's something that is not as easy to do in a restaurant setting as it is in package stores, he said. The regulation was the brainchild of Bay Ridge Wine and Spirits' owner, Charles Ferrar, who suggested it while serving on an ad hoc committee with other licensees and liquor board members almost two years ago.
Ferrar readily admits his reasoning was quite personal.
After being netted in a police sting for not carding a bald, undercover and underage cadet, Ferrar was frustrated by what he perceived as an imbalance in enforcement: Liquor store owners were being fined while minors and clerks walked away with a slap on the wrist, he said.
"I said, `Card everyone,' so we can protect ourselves," he said. "I've only been caught once in 10 years, and I don't want to be caught again."
The only store owner on the committee, Ferrar told the liquor board his colleagues supported the measure, Grayston said. The bar, restaurant and club owners on the committee were not interested.
Ferrar said he did talk to other store owners - three of the 17 others in town - and they agreed with the measure once he explained how it ensured they would not get caught in police stings.
But several other liquor store owners, who were not asked how they felt about the regulation, said they don't want it either.
"It's a pain in the butt," said Bessie Gritz, owner of Gritz's Liquors.
Hillsmere resident Doug Colley, 50, walked almost a mile with his two young children to buy some beer at Bay Ridge Wine and Spirits in August. With money in his pocket, but no wallet, he was forced to accept an offer from an elderly Florida couple to buy the 12-pack for him.
"I haven't done that since I was 17 years old," he said. Some store owners - including Ferrar - say a few customers have threatened to take their business outside the city.
But Grayston and current liquor board chair Valerie Miller defend the regulation.
"If everybody has to be carded, then it isn't a question of discretion of who you card and you don't," Miller said.
They point out that the public and store owners were notified of pending changes in the liquor board's rules. No one came forward to oppose the measure.
Then, the regulation - included in a 26-page package of revised rules - was submitted to the council, which has 45 days to respond to board regulations before they become law. No council member objected.
But Moyer and other council members said they didn't read the board's packet, which was submitted in May in the midst of the city's budget process.
"We should have caught it; we didn't," she said. "That does not take away their responsibility of being more communicative."
The regulation may not be long-lived. If Moyer's measure passes and the liquor board still elects to keep the regulation on the books, she said she would consider legislation to override it.
