DRUG TRAFFIC

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 June 1922, Page 6

DRUG TRAFFIC

LONDON J.P.’S TAKE ACTION. LONDON, April 28. While a certain evening papei' is running a highly coloured series of articles purporting to be revelations of London’s drug traffic of a luridness that is laughable, and lending itself to neat parody by a “Punch” contributor, there is no doubt of the reality of its existence. The very number of tragedies reported in the courts are sufficient evidence without the sort served up by the said evening journal, which is either stupid or venial, or both, for it describes places and persons with such a particularity that if the latter exist they will at once make themselves scarce in their known haunts, and so defeat the ends of justice after that journal’s very explicit exposures. That trade in dope such as has led to several suicides of late is part of the life that centres round night clubs is an admitted fact. So much is this the case that certain London Justices of the Peace who have seldom, if ever, taken such action, met to-day and decided to send a deputation to the Home Secretary on the question of the conduct of night clubs in London. A report read at the meeting stated that a large number of the so-called clubs and dancing resorts in London were conducted “in a manner serious detrimental to those who frequent them, annd many in fact, are a direct evasion of the licensing laws.” If anything were wanted to rub home their text it was done by the proceedings that very day in Marlborough Street Police Court, in a case against a man summoned for permitting unlicensed dancing on his premises. Mr P. E. Dines, who prosecuted for the L.C.C., said he believed, after having heard the evidence, that the magistrate would be satisfied “it is as bad a case as it could possibly be.” Tie would endeavour to prove that the premises were frequented by women of bad character, and that there were scenes of drunkenness and disorder on the premises. There was some evidence that the premises were used by people who were drug takers, and there was at least one instance of indecency which one would have thought was incredible in a private or public dancing hall at the present day. P. 0. Hanks gave evidence of attending the hall and buying the usual tickets. On one occasion a number of women present were known to him as immoral, and he had seen women in a drugged condition. On a later visit he counted 30 men drunk. There was some disorder, but no attempt, was made by the manager or M.C. to restore order. One man who was drunk pulled down the shoulder straps of his woman companion’s evening dress, and left hei exposed. Other of the lady’s wearing apparel was taken off. The woman did not seem embarrassed. She just laughed and readjusted her clothing. P.O. Harris added that the ticket office was in a tobacconist’s shop, and the two tickets he took cost him £1 2s 6d. Had he been a subscriber to the club, he was told on one occasion, it would have been 6/- cheaper. • The magistrate questioned the constable at some length about the woman he said he saw drugged. Sir Henry: Where was she?—Sitting down.

“Did she dance?”—“l don’t know.” “How did you know she was drugged?” “She showed some of the symptoms. Het paws were twitching. Sometimes she went off into a dazed condition. “All in five minutes?” —“Yes.”

This prosecution is the second taken at the instance of the London County Council, which has determined on a campaign against these places.