WASHINGTON – Hundreds of Maryland’s bars, liquor stores, restaurants and clubs sold alcohol to minors in the past year, but fewer than 10 percent had their liquor licenses suspended or revoked as a result.
During a one-year period from November 2000 to October 2001, more than 420 establishments were guilty of violating state and local laws against selling to people under age 21, according to reports from county and city liquor control boards.
But a Capital News Service analysis of liquor control board reports filed with the state showed that fewer than 40 businesses, just under 9 percent of those cited, were forced to close temporarily or lose their licenses as punishment.
The majority of establishments who sold alcohol to minors — including some who had committed more than one violation — paid fines and then continued business as usual. About 70 percent of cited businesses paid fines ranging from $100 to $5,000, with more than half paying $500 or less, according to the CNS analysis.
And 18 who sold alcohol to minors walked out of their liquor control board hearings with no more than a warning or letter of reprimand. The remaining businesses got a mixture of fines, reprimands or probation.
Regulators and industry officials defended the current structure of penalties, saying that suspensions are not always merited and that fines and warnings are enough to dissuade most licensees from selling to minors.
“Depending on the establishment, you might put people out of work with a suspension,” said Jane Schroeder, who is president of the Maryland Alcohol Licensing Association and works for Baltimore City’s liquor control board.
“Given the economy, that’s a difficult thing to decide to do,” Schroeder said. “You can actually kill a business. That’s a serious consideration.”
But while youth advocates like Mothers Against Drunk Drivers “recognize the predicament that retail establishments are in,” they said it is critical that those establishments be stopped from providing alcohol to children and teen-agers.
“The owner still has the responsibility to be sure he’s following the law,” said Brenda Barnes, the executive director of the Maryland chapter of MADD.
Advocates said it is particularly important that second-time offenders be temporarily banned from selling alcohol, preferably during a weekend.
“In many cases, retailers don’t respond unless their license can be suspended,” said Molly Mitchell, who coordinates the state’s program for combating underage drinking in Maryland.
Mitchell noted that most license holders don’t violate the law in the first place, but said those who do should face tough and consistent penalties.
But Schroeder called mandatory suspensions for second-time offenders “unrealistic.”
Some jurisdictions already have laws in place to require the suspension of a second-time offender’s license.
In Frederick County, for example, businesses caught selling to minors are fined and have their licenses suspended, but the suspension is not enforced during a probationary period. If the establishment is caught selling to minors during the probation, the first suspension is enforced in addition to any penalty that may be levied as a result of the second violation.
In addition to enforcing state laws, county liquor boards are charged with ensuring that a variety of local laws are followed and with deciding which sanctions are appropriate.
The penalties for selling alcohol to minors varied greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the records showed. In Dorchester County, for example, all six violators in the last year received letters of reprimand, while in Talbot County, the board ordered one first-time violator to stop selling alcohol for three days and pay a $500 fine.
Mitchell said uniform liquor laws and sanctions could help deter licensees from breaking the law.
“These laws send a message about what the expectations are,” she said. “Uniform sanctions would send a consistent message that these violations are serious.”
More consistent penalties could also help deter underage drinkers, said Erin Artigiani, of the University of Maryland’s Center for Substance Abuse Research.
“It’s easy for youth in one county to drive to another,” she said. “Right now they know a bar over in another county will serve them when places in their home county won’t.”
CNS analyzed records provided by local liquor control boards to Comptroller William Donald Schaefer’s office, which monitors liquor violations. Each month, liquor boards in each jurisdiction — every county plus Annapolis and Baltimore City have boards — submit a monthly notice of board activity to the comptroller’s office.
Liquor boards are encouraged to send a notification form each and every month, but in some cases boards do not send notice when there is no activity.