Pub Customers Tested For Drugs

[Jim Finnel]

A PUB landlord has launched a crackdown on drugs by introducing random testing of customers at the door.

Stuart Worth has adopted the zero-tolerance approach after taking over the Black Swan pub in New Road, Spalding six weeks ago.

He will use a handheld machine to take swabs of people's hands and test for traces of *edit hard drugs, cannabis.

He hopes that by refusing entry to anyone who tests positive for the illegal substances, he can turn around the pub's previous troubled reputation.

Mr Worth (35) said: "When I took over the pub my aim was to clean it up and prove to the public that it isn't what it used to be.

"A lot of time and money has been spent doing the place up and focusing on getting rid of drugs was a big part of that.

"We'll be doing the tests randomly and it will cost me £300 to hire the machine, so that shows how seriously we are taking this."

As well as introducing random testing for his customers, Mr Worth has refurbished the pub's toilets so there are no flat surfaces for people to use to take cocaine.

He is confident the moves will have a positive effect on the Black Swan's image, but the prospect of random drug testing catching on in Peterborough's bars, pubs and clubs appears remote.

A similar scheme was tested by police at licensed premises in the city last year, and Del Singh, owner of the Park nightclub in Park Road and chairman of Peterborough CentreSafe, said testing was an "invasion of privacy".

He said: "If this man has had problems with drugs in the past then it is admirable he is taking action.

"But I don't think it would be right to impose something like this in Peterborough in a dictatorial fashion. It would be far too draconian.

"At the moment, Peterborough's night-time economy isn't in great shape and this could be another reason for people to choose to stay at home rather than running the risk of being searched and swabbed every time they go out."

Manager of the Brewery Tap in Westgate Jessica Loock said last year's pilot had been far from successful and had deterred people from coming to her pub.

She said: "The trade is suffering enough as it is in the current economic climate, so why would we want to scare people into thinking that drug use is common in Peterborough's night-time economy when it isn't?

"It will put people off coming into the city at night rather than making them feel we are creating a safer environment. I don't think it will benefit anybody."

*some content has been edited



News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Peter Borought Today
Author: Ed O'Mara
Copyright: 2008 Johnston Press Digital Publishing
Contact: Contact Us
Website: Pub customers tested for drugs - Peterborough Today

 

[pcmoe5000]

Well sooner or later people are going to find out and they are just going to wash there hands before they go there. That is of course if they even want to go there now.

 

[Jim Finnel]

washing their hands of his establishment would be a more appropriate action. boycott his business. this is the kind of stupid shit that could catch on.

 

[Weed420]

Get about a dozen people,stand outside,fire up a blunt and say"Damn I sure am thirsty. I'd love to have a beer" And then walk away.

 

[Keith Lake]

What an invasion of privacy. We can only hope no one frequents his establishment.

The irony, Etoh ok TCH not so much

 

[Happy Kitty]

If you are trying to clean up the image, then by all means, turn your customers away.

I wonder how many of the regulars use marijuana. The word will get out that if you visit this pub you may be subject to a random drug test. It's laughable, at best.

And does he give them a breathalyzer on the way out? I didn't think so...

Peace

 

[Smokin Moose]

This lends itself to a successful case for discrimination in court. If you are on opiates that are prescribed, or on Marinol, you will test positive. To then be denied entry would cause a shitload of trouble in Court for discrimination. This fool is trying to fuck up his own business.

 

[wordsworm]

"This lends itself to a successful case for discrimination in court. " I don't agree with this. If employers are able to do this, then I can't see there being anything anyone can do about this man's choice. I don't entirely disagree with him being allowed to do this at all. Hey, I love MJ, and I'm a proponent of legalizing (and controlling) all drugs. On the other hand, I can see him wanting to screen out potential problems with some of the drug users. It's your choice whether or not you go to this place.

Let's look at it this way: this portal, which is biased towards the legalization of pot (which is a bias I share) filters out content and people it doesn't like so that the people it does like have a pleasant place to preach to the choir.

I like the idea of freedom, but freedom itself is a far more complex issue than the propaganda suggests. The freedom to kill is offset by the freedom to live. The freedom to get stoned anywhere is offset by the freedom of others who want to be free from it. So, the contention that drug use is purely a matter of freedom isn't exactly honest or well thought out. What about the barman's freedom from something he doesn't like? By scanning and rejecting folks who use drugs, regardless of our feelings of exclusion, is simply his tool to control the environment which is his?

My opinion is that his freedom should be protected over that of our right to toke or snort (in his establishment), regardless of whether or not it's legal or illegal.

 

[Smokin Moose]

You missed my point totally. I stated that if person on a legally prescribed medication containing opiates was denied entry because he was positive on the test, would be a clear case of discrimination and would most likely succeed in court. The issue of the legality is an entirely separate issue IMO

 

[wordsworm]

I never missed your point Moose. Medication or not, there's no chance of this guy getting hung out by the court. The courts are crucifying people who use drugs, not people who are fighting drug use.

 

[Cannapheliac]

"This lends itself to a successful case for discrimination in court. " I don't agree with this. If employers are able to do this, then I can't see there being anything anyone can do about this man's choice. I don't entirely disagree with him being allowed to do this at all. Hey, I love MJ, and I'm a proponent of legalizing (and controlling) all drugs. On the other hand, I can see him wanting to screen out potential problems with some of the drug users. It's your choice whether or not you go to this place.

Let's look at it this way: this portal, which is biased towards the legalization of pot (which is a bias I share) filters out content and people it doesn't like so that the people it does like have a pleasant place to preach to the choir.

I like the idea of freedom, but freedom itself is a far more complex issue than the propaganda suggests. The freedom to kill is offset by the freedom to live. The freedom to get stoned anywhere is offset by the freedom of others who want to be free from it. So, the contention that drug use is purely a matter of gfreedom isn't exactly honest or well thought out. What about the barman's freedom from something he doesn't like? By scanning and rejecting folks who use drugs, regardless of our feelings of exclusion, is simply his tool to control the environment which is his?

My opinion is that his freedom should be protected over that of our right to toke or snort (in his establishment), regardless of whether or not it's legal or illegal.

Wow are you serious? You really think that this is ok? He runs a PUBLIC business not a private social club which is what it should be if he wants only people of his chosing to enter. What if everywhere started this? What if all the grocery stores, hospitals, fastfood resturaunts, ect. Just cause they don't want drug addicts in there establishment? Then would it still be ok? There privately owned right? So they should be able to do what they want according to you right? What a good way to kill off all the undesireables in society, don't let em buy food, get hospital care or anything else you want to deny people.

If you let 1 business violate peoples rights like this what's to stop all business from doing it? Where does it stop? No its wrong no matter what arguement you use to justify it, and I hope his business goes under and takes him with it.
Its people like this guy that enable assholes like bush to prosper and take control. Fuckin Nazi!

 

[Cannapheliac]

And another thing is you design your place to attract any type of people, you don't open a French resturaunt and have it look like a burger joint do you? No! Because you want people to see it and say hey thats a French place let's go get French food, not hey theres a burger spot let's get some burgers then they walk in and its fuckin snails and shit! And then you get pissed your only attracting people who like burgers I mean if this wants to open a druggee free bar then he needs to cater to the more conservative crowd if he played clasical music, or lounge music and had a forma dress code of jacket and tie and had a doorman only select olde more conservative people. If this guys opening up a soccer bar, a punk rock bar, disco bar , hip hop bar ECT. Then what the fuck does he expect? No this guys doing this probably because he has some stake in the business that supplies this type of machine to places like this and he wants publicity for it and himself and not to mention he's obviously a conservative fuck that hangs on to a puritanical hope that some how all the filthy undesireables should be burned at the stake or tortured till they accept their way of life and admit to being evil.

I know that sounds exaggerated but its not its what happens whenever any group of people with a certain beleif gain an advantage of power over other peoples, wheathet it be Christian, Catholic, Protestant, muslim, or anything else.

I do not use the word hate lightly but I hate any 1 who thinks they are any better then any 1 else because nobody knows what they themselves would be like if put in living situation of the person or peoples that they feel superior too. I firmly beleive that oppressors will have a special place in hell no matter wether they oppressed many or just a few, just the act of it and the evil feeling if satisfaction when there whatever they're doing is going ahead. Its all a power trip, these are the type of people we have runnig our fuckin country, I can feel it my bones that the world is gonna end in 2012 and if mcain gets in il know I'm right. Its this type of thing thats gonna start it all off the beast is coming and shit like what this guy is up to is just the begining. Thats why I say fuck it!! I'm gonna do what I want if mcain gets in bit if obamas gets in we mite have some hope.
I don't like obama either but I don't beleive he's as violent at all as mcain is and if mcain gets in hell reinstate the draft and then its over. This is my opinion anyway. Sorry if I'm rambling a lil I'm all goo'd out.

 

[wordsworm]

Cannapheliac - you have a wild imagination. In my perfect world, you'd be free to toke and snort as long as it didn't assault the freedom others should have to protect themselves and their businesses from you when you become obnoxious.

 

[zolar]

let him do the testing then sue him fornot doing breathalizers on folks leaving and druink driving....


or get the temperance folks to close him down.....

 

[Jim Finnel]

i believe that any business/property owner should be able to conduct their business anyway they choose. i believe people have the right to be ignorant, bigoted, racist or just plain stupid if its on their property and not publicly funded. then everyone else has the right to ignore, boycott or whatever.

 

[RooRman]

...
I like the idea of freedom, but freedom itself is a far more complex issue than the propaganda suggests. The freedom to kill is offset by the freedom to live. The freedom to get stoned anywhere is offset by the freedom of others who want to be free from it. So, the contention that drug use is purely a matter of freedom isn't exactly honest or well thought out. What about the barman's freedom from something he doesn't like? By scanning and rejecting folks who use drugs, regardless of our feelings of exclusion, is simply his tool to control the environment which is his?..

Excuse me for saying this, but that is completely ridiculous.

It is no ones business but my own what food, liquids, substances, or chemicals I put into my body. If someone doesn't like the choices I have made that do not effect anyone other then myself in any way, shape, or form then that is quite frankly too bad for them.

If he wishes to be free of any and all contact with people who use drugs maybe he should go live on Mars... or at least get out of the business of serving alcohol, which last time I checked was an intoxicating substance in it's own right.

Furthermore, whether people are turned away because they are actually users of an illegal substance or simply because they will not sacrifice their god given rights and consent to unlawful drug testing the results are still the same, no patronage and no profits. Of course as others have said he is free to run his business into the ground if he wishes.

I seriously think you need to re-assess exactly what "freedom" means because the minute we start to accept these kind of actions, our freedoms are exactly what is being trounced on.

 

[Weed420]

Excuse me for saying this, but that is completely ridiculous.

It is no ones business but my own what food, liquids, substances, or chemicals I put into my body. If someone doesn't like the choices I have made that do not effect anyone other then myself in any way, shape, or form then that is quite frankly too bad for them.

If he wishes to be free of any and all contact with people who use drugs maybe he should go live on Mars... or at least get out of the business of serving alcohol, which last time I checked was an intoxicating substance in it's own right.

Furthermore, whether people are turned away because they are actually users of an illegal substance or simply because they will not sacrifice their god given rights and consent to unlawful drug testing the results are still the same, no patronage and no profits. Of course as others have said he is free to run his business into the ground if he wishes.

I seriously think you need to re-assess exactly what "freedom" means because the minute we start to accept these kind of actions, our freedoms are exactly what is being trounced on.

I disagree. As much as this guy seems like an idiot, this is his establishment and he should have the right to serve whoever he wants. If it costs him profits then thats the choice he makes.

 

[RooRman]

I disagree. As much as this guy seems like an idiot, this is his establishment and he should have the right to serve whoever he wants. If it costs him profits then thats the choice he makes.

Did I not say that?

...Furthermore, whether people are turned away because they are actually users of an illegal substance or simply because they will not sacrifice their god given rights and consent to unlawful drug testing the results are still the same, no patronage and no profits. Of course as others have said he is free to run his business into the ground if he wishes...

As much as I recognize his right not to serve me for whatever arbitrary reason that is none of his business to begin with, I much more so recognize my own right to not be illegally searched by someone with no legal authority whatsoever.

In effect I would stay out of his business altogether.

 

[Smokin Moose]

I agree with User to an extent, but if say I went in and I had been taking prescription meds containing opiates, or a product for flu or cold containing a stimulant such as ephedrine, and I was refused entry because I wrongly tested positive for an unrelated illegal substance, I would sue the bastard for all he's got. It would be embarrassing to say the least to be wrongly labelled a 'druggie' because I had a legal and legitimate reason to be on those meds. I still maintain the guy would be found wanting in a court of law. In Australia that is clearly discrimination.

 

[wordsworm]

"I much more so recognize my own right to not be illegally searched by someone with no legal authority whatsoever."

That's not what he's doing. You're consenting to be searched as a part of the agreement to get inside his establishment. He's not going to your home, or stopping you in the streets to perform this test. If you don't want to be searched, you can turn around and go back home.

It's not terribly dissimilar to being checked for a camera or weapon before going in to watch a concert.

As to whether or not this will cost him business remains to be seen.