The chairman of Newquay Pubwatch felt there were benefits for premises in their use, helping to address the problem of pre-loading, and hoping customers would spend more money drinking in the town’s venues rather than on cheaper alcohol from supermarkets. Their use does give door staff another weapon in their armoury in refusing customers access.
However, I would suggest that, for many reasons, their use is unwarranted, unwelcomed by many in the trade, and sends the wrong message to customers.
Why do I say this? Door staff have for decades used their judgment when deciding whether to admit a customer. Simply because an individual blows into a breathalyser and a red light goes on does not mean that they are ‘drunk’.
We have already addressed the problems of defining “drunkenness”. Just because an individual blows red it doesn’t mean they should not be admitted to the venue and if somebody blows amber it does not mean they should be admitted. Alcohol affects people in different ways.
One police force suggested that not only would somebody have to blow more than twice the drink-drive limit, but they would also need to “show signs of impairment through alcohol... ”. This would suggest that, for a member of door staff, provided they blow under the ‘set’ limit, they could be admitted even if they were showing signs of impairment. Surely you come back to the door staff’s discretion, so why the need for a breathalyser?
Who dictates at what levels the “green, amber and red” lights are set? One police force I am aware of has set it at twice the drink-drive limit, and another at three times.
Machines should never replace door staff judgment. You can imagine a customer who is proving awkward and is asked to blow into the machine, but it shows green or amber. The customer says he should be let in, but door staff still refuse him entry. Does this not allow the customer a reason to argue why they should be allowed in?
Will the machines not cause customers to feel criminalised and victimised if they are asked to blow into a machine but are perfectly sober?
For those pre-loading at home living close to licensed venues, any alcohol that they consume at home will not have been fully absorbed into their blood stream until 20 minutes has elapsed. Should a door man ask everybody to wait in a queue for 20 minutes until breathalysed?
Will the use of breathalysers mean bar staff (as has been the case with underage sales tests) are less likely to challenge a customer when they have been admitted by a doorman with a breathalyser?
Some venues have been asked to maintain logs of when the equipment is being used. If this is a purely voluntary initiative suggested by police forces, why suggest the introduction of a log? Is this being used as a check by forces to establish to what extent the machines are being used? The rationale given by the police is that it will ascertain average readings but there must be the risk that should there be issues at a venue, the police will simply use this log on any review application against the venue.
With violent crime and alcohol consumption falling since the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, why do police forces feel the use of breathalysers is an appropriate or proportionate measure to ask operators to implement? There may be individual cases where levels of intoxication at premises are such that it is appropriate to introduce them, but their use must to be the exception rather than the norm.
What we are seeing now is more police forces starting to follow this initiative, originally introduced in Norfolk, but which has spread to Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Leicestershire, Devon and Cornwall.
Where does this all end? Is the next step for breathalysers to be used at bars? Are we going to follow the Spanish model where a proposal has been put forward to crack down on “drink-walking”, where pedestrians are breathalysed in a bid to stop road traffic accidents?
What next? Will we be asked to prove our cholesterol level before we walk into a takeaway?