Somethings Cooking in the Kitchen And its Not Dinner - Research Paper Example

What do sodium hydroxide, iodine, and sulfuric acid have in common? For most of the time, the appropriate answer is, not much. However, those three items, along with a host of others, are common ingredients in a drug called methamphetamine. What is even more worrying is that two of those three ingredients, commonly known as lye and drain cleaner, can routinely be found in restaurant kitchens, making drug manufacturing and trafficking an easy to start second business when the restaurant is closed. Moreover, another location is coming into use for the making of methamphetamine (aka “meth”): hotel and motel rooms. The reason they are becoming so popular? Unlike other property, such as a place of residence, it cannot be seized by the police. Since 2004, police and other authorities have found evidence of at least 1,789 motel rooms being used as meth labs (Mullins). A further sobering point is that this is just the rooms that have been discovered, and that no one really knows how many have not. Health risks and illegalities of the manufacturing of drugs aside, the legal issues are enormous for hotel, motel, and restaurant owners that have their facilities used by drug-making hobbyists. As meth is an illegal drug, it also has the distinction, according to The Rooms Chronicle, of being a ‘do-it-yourself’ drug, which people can ‘cook’ fairly anywhere out of sight. The most common legal issues that a hotel/motel manager or restaurant owner would face in having their establishment turned into a point of manufacturing or sale for drugs would be liability to guests for safety and health issues, liability for any criminal acts of the employees, as well as the ramifications of the cleanup and the cleanup costs of such activities. Hotels and motels also face liability for the security of their establishment when this issue comes into play, as guests wish to be safe and secure, but not to the point of feeling as though they are being held hostage instead of enjoying a restful stay. Because of the significant impact food-service business can have on the health and safety of their patrons, these establishments are subject to a wide range of regulatory requirements, which often vary by city and state (Lynn 187). In other words, restaurants have a legal duty to guarantee that their guests are eating safe food, and are the target of many inspectors and legal statues. All restaurant owners are responsible for knowing the laws for the area in which they are operating when it comes to serving safe food. Therefore, turning a kitchen into a drug-trafficking nightmare substantially increases the fact that a customer will be served tainted food. Given the chemicals that go into making methamphetamines and other drugs, such as pool cleaner, gasoline, and engine starter, it is highly doubtful that a quick “wash and wipe” of the counters before the restaurant opens will be sufficient to protect patrons from becoming deathly ill and possibly having long-term health problems because of the exposure. Turning a hotel or motel room into a drug manufacturing and/or trafficking station implies liability on the part of the owners and managers of that establishment as well. In general, innkeepers and motel owners are only obligated to exercise “reasonable care” when it comes to protecting guests from harm, and liability will usually only result when a guest suffers harm that was reasonably “foreseeable” (Back et. al.). In essence, if a motel or hotel has had prior drug or meth lab activity at its premises, and in the future fails to warn customers upon staying there, or fails to follow proper cleanup procedures, then liability could result and lead to costly legal troubles (not to mention bad press releases) for those in charge. For example, in the state of Pennsylvania, according to Restatement of Tort 343, “A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, and only if, he (a) knows (a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger”. In reading this statement, it is not hard to imagine that the first time a meth lab or other drug trafficking is found on the premises, the manager or owner can plead ignorance and, with time and the great forgiveness of the community, once more lead a successful business. However, in the future, the owners and managers will always have to be aware of what was conducted and take steps to prevent it, if such was not done already, to exercise the statute of liability being spoken of. It is not something one would think of in the main, but taking security steps to prevent a meth lab on the premises leads to another legal issue – security for the guests. The hotel industry is willing and able to provide as much security as the guests’ desire; however, the American public is apparently not willing to endure much (Stover 1). Once again, the hospitality industry must walk a fine line – enough security to comply with laws and regulations, but not enough so as to invade guests’ privacy. Guests wish to feel safe, and secure, as is their right when staying at a hotel; however, guests do not wish to feel as though they are being ‘held hostage’ by security measures in order to enter and get to their rooms. A hotly contested issue, according to The Rooms Chronicle, an online hotel and hospitality industry journal, is that some hotels require that maintenance or housekeeping enter the room at least once per every 24 hours to assess the room and perform general cleaning duties. To some, this is not necessary, especially those that wish to be undisturbed and therefore put out the “Do Not Disturb” sign. Were any type of drug manufacture or trafficking going on, the “Do Not Disturb” sign would most likely clearly be in place and could be considered inviolate. Even the strong odor coming from in or around the room is not sufficient enough to warrant a full-scale raid by hotel personnel and/or law enforcement – the chlorine odor could be coming, for example, from the pool, or the smell of heavy perfume that has been known to waft throughout the corridors could be coming from a patron that had put on a heavy-scented perfume or cologne before heading out for dinner. In either case, staff would most likely think twice about knocking on any doors or alerting management only to look silly when it amounted to nothing. One might think it hard to conduct a drug trade in a hotel kitchen, but just the opposite can be true. Small-scale meth labs can be up and running in just four hours (Ellis 3). In larger hotels, while it might be a problem to manufacture drugs in a kitchen “on call” or open 24 hours a day, the sale and trade of them is most likely not an obstacle to the determined. Also, consider the small café inside of a hotel that does not open except for lunch and dinner. Working hours would possibly be from noon to nine at night, allow another hour for cleanup and shutdown, and a round of meth or other drugs can still be made before lunch the next day. Unfortunately, alongside the liability to patrons for general health and safety, including when eating in a restaurant and/or staying in a hotel, comes a liability for criminal acts committed by employees. The restaurant industry alone provided, as of 2006, work for nearly 9% of those employed in the United States (Lynn 174), and the hospitality industry is known to be a global and far-reaching scale when it comes to human resources and staffing. Simply put, this means a lot of people in and out of hotels, motels, and restaurants, in various positions. Given the amount of people that are used in staffing and running these establishments, it stands to reason that, despite background checks and other means an employer uses to verify an employee’s credibility, once in a while an employee will come through with a criminal record. Even without a criminal record, there is no guarantee that an employee who has been hired is trustworthy, and therefore restaurants as well as hotels must take a stand against employee behavior when it comes to the well-being of the business. First and foremost, the employer must conduct a sound background check of the person being hired to avoid having liability later for “negligent hiring”, meaning, in essence, that the employer did not exercise care or prudence when hiring someone. Obviously, most employers will not hire someone that they know outright is not qualified or unfit for a job – it is the “should have known” part that gets employers into trouble (Rosen 2010). The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2004, decided the case Blair v. Defender Services, whereby an employer claimed that they were not liable for criminal acts of his employee and not obligated to do a background check – and not in the employer’s favor. The court determined that: An employer in placing a person with known propensities, or propensities which should have been discovered by reasonable investigation, in an employment position in which, because of the circumstances of the employment, it should have been foreseeable that the hired individual posed a threat of injury to others. ( 386 F.3d 623 4th Cir., 2004) An employer also, depending on state and federal labor laws, has the right to insert into an employee’s contract that random drug screening will be a condition of employment at the establishment, and any positive results can lead to immediate dismissal. For example, according to the State of Nevada’s Employment and Labor Laws, there are no laws regulating the drug or alcohol testing of employees at private companies; however, public employers can request any employee submit to a drug or alcohol testing based upon reasonable suspicion of objective facts that an employee is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. Consider for a moment the case of Rabutino v. Freedom State Realty, Inc. In this case, the courts ruled that hotel owners could be held liable for the wrongful death of a 19-year-old who was shot to death during a party at the hotel. The courts concluded, in this case, that the hotel had liability since a security guard in the employee of said hotel had already informed the managers about the party, as well as the fact that it was “getting out of hand”. Therefore, as the owners/managers knew what was going on, they should have foreseen the risks and could be held liable (809 A.2d 933 Pa. Super. 2002). The same holds true in employment practices. Should a restaurant owner or hotel manager hire someone with a prior history of drug trafficking and know about that history, said owner could be held liable for any drug trafficking that occurs in their establishment, as well as how it affects patrons and/or guests, since they knew about the drugs and still hired the person. If they did not know because they did not conduct any sort of a background check and discover any sort of a criminal record, they would still be held liable, because the information could have been discovered with reasonable investigation – a criminal background check. The ramifications of the drug trade being conducted in restaurant kitchens as well as throughout the hospitality industry of hotels and motels can be endless, and none of them can lead to a picture that allows easy sleep at night. One of the easiest ramifications to gauge is cleanup costs – while it is easy and only takes approximately 4 hours to turn any area, be it a kitchen or hotel room into a drug lab, turning it back takes far longer, and is far more expensive. Meth lab cleanup costs amounted to almost $29 million dollars in 2005, and since then the number has only grown (Drug Policy Research Center 2005). The approximate cost to clean a lab properly is approximately two to three thousand dollars, per lab. Even without multiplying that number by the standard number of rooms a hotel or motel might have, the cost is mentally staggering, and no matter what the liability insurance is on the premises, insurance most likely will not cover all of the costs, especially if the hotel or kitchen is repeatedly being used to manufacture the drug. The other ramification is, of course, the loss of the business. While the hotel or restaurant owner may not be held liable and forced to shut down the establishment by law, the word of drug production and trafficking getting out to the community can soon make a hotel, motel, or restaurant a pariah in the eyes of those around it. Those in the hospitality industry make a living from the goodwill of others and ensuring that they have a good experience, otherwise there would be no reason to begin such a business in the first place. A family of four looking for a nice, quiet vacation will not appreciate having a drug trafficking business going on in a room just down the hall, or if they found out that the back kitchen in their neighborhood restaurant was being used as a place to sell drugs. While it is true that the legal issues and ramifications from drug trafficking in any establishment can carry heavy fines and cause the loss of business, all hope is not lost. Employee training, as well as knowledge of the behaviors and issues, can go a long way in preventing being in a harmful situation to begin with. Just as business insurance is purchased with the hope of never needing it, liability can be avoided by the proper training, and an open eye to the issues at hand. Works Cited Back, Jean Ohman. “Liability To Guests From Exposure To A Hotel Meth Lab –Tips For Prevention” www.hospitalitylawyer.com. Schwabe, Williamson, and Wyatt. 12 August 2010 . Barish, Miriam Benton. "Hospitality Law - Security and Premise Liability" http://www.anapolschwartz.com/. 2008. The Law Firm of Anapol-Schwartz. 13 August 2010 . Drug Policy Research Center. “The Costs of Methamphetamine Use - A National Estimate” www.rand.org. 2010. The Rand Organization. 17 August 2010 . Ellis, Jr., Raymond C. “Meth Labs in Hotels Pose a Dangerous and Significant Challenge” The Rooms Chronicle Vol. 18.1. (2009):1-4 11 August 2010 . Fisher and Phillips LLP. “State of Nevada - Employment and Labor Laws" The Hospitality Lawyer. The Hospitality Lawyer. 18 August 2010 . Lynn, Jacquelene, and Entrepreneur Press. Start Your Own Restaurant and Five Other Food Businesses - Your Step by Step Guide to Success. Entrepreneur Media Inc., 2006. Mullins, KJ. “Checking in at the Local Meth Lab” The Digital Journal (2009) 17 August 2010 . Stover, Jim. “Hotel Security - How Much is Too Much from a Guests' Perspective?” The Rooms Chronicle Vol. 17.1. (April 2010):1-3 17 August 2010 . Read More