PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY DECEMBER 2025.PDF

I. 
Background  
 
Tempe City Council’s Subcommittee on Drink Spiking Education & Prevention collected 
feedback on a proposed ordinance that would add new requirements for security plans 
to help prevent drink spiking, promote public education and strengthen safety in 
Tempe’s nightlife scene.  
 
Proposed Ordinance Provisions 
• 
Require bars/nightclubs to provide drink-spiking test devices available to patrons 
during operating hours.  
• 
Kits may be provided free or sold with a maximum markup of 20% over purchase 
cost. 
• 
Requires establishments to check device expiration dates and replace expired 
stock; however, establishments are NOT held liable for defective or false positive 
tests. 
• 
Allows venues to offer drink lids/covers (free or for sale). 
• 
Creates an incentive: venues that provide free test kits and lids are eligible for a 
25% liquor license fee reduction. 
• 
Requires clear, visible signage informing patrons about kit availability. Signage 
will be provided by Tempe PD. 
 
The proposed ordinance would apply to businesses holding the following liquor licenses 
that serve alcohol past 10 p.m. on weekdays or 12 a.m. on weekends. 
• 
Series 3 – Domestic Microbrewery 
• 
Series 6 – Bar 
• 
Series 7 – Beer & Wine 
• 
Series 11 – Hotel/Motel 
• 
Series 12 – Restaurant 
 
The only operating requirement placed on businesses would be to have testing kits 
available for purchase. Please see the attached information sheet for additional 
information on the proposed ordinance. Exceptions may include establishments that do 
not align with the ordinance’s intent, such as bowling alleys, movie theaters, sports 
arenas, or restaurants that do not serve cocktails or beer on tap (e.g., Chipotle, Mod 
 
Drink Spiking Education & Prevention Ordinance 
Public Input Summary  
 
December 2025 
 
 
Contents  
I. Background  
II. Outreach  
III. Survey Results 
IV. Emails 
V. Attachments

Pizza). Businesses that believe they qualify for an exception not explicitly listed may 
request exemption authorization from the Chief of Police. 
 
A public meeting was held on Dec. 10, 2025 at 6 p.m. at the Tempe Public Library. 
Additionally, a survey was available online at tempe.gov/Forum from Nov. 25 – Dec. 17, 
2025. This survey received a total of 394 visitors and 292 responses.  
 
During the course of the subcommittee’s work, KnoMore surveyed over 180 students at 
Arizona State University in October 2025 about their sentiment of nighttime safety within 
nightlife. The results of that survey are included at the end of the summary of input the 
city collected.  
 
II. 
Outreach  
 
Several methods were used to provide information to the community and stakeholders 
regarding the project, meeting and opportunities for input. 
 
Project Webpage  
The project web page was updated continuously and included information about the 
proposed ordinance, the date and access information for the public meetings and online 
comment information.  
 
Emails  
Email notification was made to e-news subscribers, impacted businesses, neighborhood 
and homeowners’ association contacts, Tempe Chamber of Commerce and Downtown 
Tempe Authority inviting them to attend the meetings or to comment online and share 
with interested community members. 
 
Nov. 19, 2025 release - Sent to 8,865 email addresses, opened by 1922 people with 
369 link clicks. 
 
Social Media  
 
 
 
11/26/25 – Drink Spiking prevention event  
• Total Engagements 427| Reactions 59 I Comments 19 I Post Link 
Clicks 316 
  
 
12/6/25 – Public meeting reminder  
• Views: 3,859 | Total Engagements 221 | Reactions 20 I 
Comments 14 Post Link Clicks 171 
 
Facebook stories

11/26/25 – Drink Spiking prevention event  
• Views 6,592 | Total Engagements 94 | Likes 67 I Shares 22  
 
Instagram stories 
 
III. 
Survey Results 
 
The survey was available online at tempe.gov/Forum from Nov. 25 – Dec. 17, 2025 to 
gather input. This survey received a total of 292 responses, 92 respondents provide an 
address, 54 of which were in Tempe.

Questions 
 
1. Which of the following best describes you? Select all that apply 
 
Responses: 292 
 
2. Do you own a bar or restaurant business that holds the following liquor 
licenses that also serves alcohol after 10 p.m. on weekdays or 12 a.m. on 
weekends: Series 3 – Domestic Microbrewery; Series 6 – Bar; Series 7 – 
Beer & Wine; Series 11—Hotel/Motel, or Series 12—Restaurant: 
 
Responses: 162 
 
3. If you answered yes to the previous question, what is the name of your 
business? 
1. 414 Pizza 
2. Alcohol Adjacent - AZ Brew Hopping 
3. Boondocks Patio & Grill 
4. Brick Road Coffee 
5. Canopy Hotel - Alter Ego & Alibi 
6. Drink Me! Tea Room 
7. Embassy Suites Tempe 
8. India masalas llc 
9. SaltFire Brewing/ Spokes On Southern 
10. Snakes & Lattes 
11. Tenaire Inc 
12. Torres Consulting and Law Group 
 
12
44
118
124
176
None of the above
Go to school in Tempe
Work in Tempe
Regularly visit Tempe
bars/nightclubs
Live in Tempe
93%
7%
No (150)
Yes (12)

4. Do you support the proposed ordinance provisions?  
 
Responses: 289 
 
Why or why not? 
 
Yes Responses: 
1. 
Addiction to alcohol and other drugs can happen so easily and there are no benefits.   
As much education and limitations that can be put on our young folks to help them 
realize the risks is worth it. The best plan for your health is to avoid it all together and 
know that others can harm you easily without your knowledge.     Education on the fact 
that not drinking has nothing to do with your social life, friends or having fun.    
2. 
Any effort to keep people safe is a good idea. It makes sense that at least covering a 
drink is a good start even for sanitary reasons alone in a crowded place.  
3. 
Any effort to make drinking safer is what is needed. There is no reasonable excuse to 
be against something that goes to make bar goers safer.  
4. 
Any measure that could prevent drink tampering should be treated as a serious matter. 
5. 
Anything helping limit drink spiking is a positive. 
6. 
Anything that helps prevent people from getting roofed in Tempe. 
7. 
Anything to improve everyone's experience and safety is something I support. 
8. 
Anything to protect from unwarranted danger. 
9. 
As a woman who has had her drink spiked in Tempe during college, it is only right that 
we help prevent some of these issues when Mill Ave is the hot spot for going out 
around ASU campus. We owe it to the students, their parents, and the community to 
protect ALL people from the dangers of drink spiking.  
10. Bars are struggling, I think people feeling safer would improve business  
11. Because as someone who has had unwanted chemicals put into his body by nefarious 
actors I believe that the trade off of liquor license reductions is fair and won't come at 
any cost to businesses while adding safety to the public. 
12. Because it is important to do everything we can to prevent patrons being drugged 
13. Because it would give those who are worried or fearful tools to protect themselves.  
14. Because this happens so often and my friends and I have been lucky to just end up 
home sick and not being taken by some gross dude on the side of the road. But people 
are probably getting taken and killed for it and we'd never know. 
15. Creates a safer environment for our patrons and encourages more single guests to be 
out spending money. 
16. Despite not being a drinker, I have friends and colleagues and students who frequent 
many of the bars in Tempe. While they have not had negative experiences at the local 
bars "as far as I'm aware" I have heard of other horror stories across the other cities 
6%
34%
60%
Not sure (19)
No (97)
Yes (173)

I've lived in. Drink spiking and the violence that emerges from it are core problems 
around any city and college campus, harming the people who frequent these 
establishments as well as the reputation of the bars themselves. For the betterment of 
our citizens and the business they frequent, it only makes sense to combat a core 
problem they experience. 
17. Drink covers should have been standard years ago. 
18. Drink spiking and sexual assault are serious issues and we should be trying to combat 
them 
19. Drink spiking is a huge problem that leads to much larger issues. 
20. Drink spiking is a prevalent issue and more should be done to address it. 
21. Drink spiking is very prevalent these days, especially in a college town like Tempe. 
Drink spiking kits allow for anyone who may feel they were spiked to check for sure. 
This is also help those who spoke drinks get caught. Drink spiking will no longer be 
something hiding in the shadows with this ordinance. 
22. Drinking education is healthy  
23. Education is important when it comes to these types of topics.  
24. For the protection of people 
25. From experience I know that drink-spiking can have terrible consequences and as 
such I think it makes sense for test strips to be commonplace as part of bar/nightclub 
first aid. I don't necessarily think there needs to be a requirement for drink covers 
because that puts too much expense on the venue.  
26. Good policy 
27. gulp  
28. Having test kits available but not burdening the place of business to incur the cost 
alone but to transact the good and service with the patron to cover the cost for the 
availability at the time of need is a pragmatic solution. 
29. Help protect people  
30. I am against drink spiking 
31. I am supportive of policies that make community third spaces safer for our residents. 
32. I believe this is an important systemic change to help prevent drink spiking. The only 
part I oppose is the exemption for sports venues. 
33. I know people whove been raped via this method 
34. I support the proposed ordinance provision as it is the easiest way to protect patrons 
from drink spiking. If bars/restaurants/hotels are held responsible for over serving, they 
should also have some accountability with drink spiking, especially if it is no cost to 
them. 
35. I support this ordinance because the cases of females having their drinks spiked is 
rising.  
36. I think having readily accessible drink protection only benefits those at bars; there's no 
negatives, and everyone can feel safe. 
37. I think it could help lowkey crimes and make people more comfortable and likely to go 
out at places that provide this.  
38. I think that any bar should be taking measures to protect their patrons and the 
recommendations in the ordinance should not be a problem for bars to accommodate  
39. I think they are a great wau to address drink spiking issues. Allowing the bars to 
receive a 25% discount on their license to provide tests/covers for free is a great 
incentive that will also help patrons.  
40. I think they would make Tempe a safer place  
41. I think this is a great resource, especially for a younger crowd who may not be fully 
aware of what it is or how fast it can happen.

42. I was raped as a result of my experience. And I was 40 years old at the time. This 
happens way too frequently. Even having signs up at locations could discourage this 
behavior.  
43. I work in bars and tempe and understand the danger  
44. I'd like to see our visitors and residents protected from crime(s) like this.  
45. im supportive of anything that makes a night out safer (except drink covers) 
46. It is a safety issue and good policy to fend off creeps who might spike someone's 
drink. The signage alone, visible from the bar seating, I assume, will be a deterrent 
from this crime. 
47. It is important for everyone to feel safe and have safety features accessible to 
everyone. 
48. it makes people that drink feel safer wen they are out drinking. 
49. It seems like an easy solution to keep people safe from predators  
50. It seems to me to be a no-brainer. Affected businesses are incurring no extra cost and 
in fact are being given a handout in the form or a liquor license fee reduction. On top of 
that they are being allowed to sell these kits at a markup l, which actually is one thing I 
find questionable. Anyone who has had their drink spiked or knows someone who has 
can tell you it's a terrifying and traumatizing experience. This seems like a very 
reasonable way to prevent this with very low impact on the daily operations of these 
businesses.  
51. It would help provide safety and reassurance to those who are drinking 
52. It's common sense 
53. It's important to do everything we can to protect members of our community from 
people looking to harm them.  
54. It's taking measures used to help prevent roofies. I don't agree with the section about 
patrons having to maybe pay for the device used to detect it because then it's like only 
those who can afford it, have the luxury to know whether their drink is spiked or not. 
That's not equitable and in my opinion would defeat the main purpose of this proposal.  
55. It's very important all people feel safe if the live or work or visit Tempe  
56. Keeps the public safe. Good addition to the cities public safety initiatives. 
57. Makes it easy for people that want to take those measures. 
58. Makes sense! No cost to establishment and protects their clientele. 
59. Many people have either experienced drink spiking firsthand or know someone who 
did. This ordinance only allows us to feel safer while out - especially in an area 
predominantly visited by students who are entering the drinking scene for the first time.  
60. Many residents feel unsafe frequently going to bars with the rise of drink spiking. I'm 
sure it has negatively affected businesses in the area. 
61. More education on topics like this will lead to less people being put in this situation.  
62. Most of my staff, including my daughter, worry about drink spiking every time they go 
out.  
63. Needs community education. "Spike a drink-straight to jail" 
64. People have been targeted for a long time in this manner, and it is about time 
someone stood up and said this will not happen here anymore.  
65. People need protection. 
66. Preventative measures to protect bar patrons is never a bad thing. Knowledge is key 
for both staff and consumers. There really is no possible angle where this would cause 
a negative impact on the community.  
67. Public safety at stake 
68. Rape culture isn't a fantasy.  
69. Safer

70. Safety 
71. Safety  
72. Safety first  
73. Safety of all people  
74. See above 
75. Seems like a good public health initiative with minimal costs to businesses  
76. Seems like an easy to implement solution to a growing problem  
77. Sounds like a great idea  
78. Spiking drinks is a serious issue and I feel for the young girls that get taken advantage 
of this way and don't have the tools or knowledge to protect themselves. 
79. SUCH a huge issue in Tempe. My freshman year so many girls were in the hospital 
because of drink spiking.  
80. Tempe is known for drink spiking and should be a safer place for college kids 
81. Tempe night life is very intimidating- young people consuming alcohol for the first time, 
crowded parties/bars, new people all around. On top of this, horror stories of young 
people (especially women) being targets of sexual assault or drink spiking causes a 
layer of fear and need for protection. It's getting harder to rationalize going out for 
many, including me! Seeing local bars take the steps to make young, 
vulnerable/intoxicated, people feel safer would be HUGE! 
82. The first time my drink was spiked it made me wary of going out. It happened 3 more 
times at different venues around the country and each time made me less willing to go 
to bars or restaurants that served alcohol. The last time it happened I decided it was 
no longer worth the risk of participating in any "night life". I may never participate in 
going out to bars again, but we should make it safer for those who do. 
83. There are a lot of manipulative people out there. 
84. There is too much chaos at places like Varsity for it to be safe without this ordnance.  
85. These changes can help patrons feel safer at bars, especially women, and are 
particularly important for establishments that have dealt with drink spiking in the  
86. They are good and safe provisions to make our city safer 
87. They give patrons a way to help protect themselves without negatively impacting 
anyone around them. It's a simple solution that does not infringe on anyone's rights 
and is cheap to implement  
88. This is a great, simple idea to increase everyone's safety 
89. This is an issue of safety first and foremost. Second to that, it is good for business. 
People will go out to bars more if they feel safe. 
90. This is not the wild Wild West where anything goes. This is a civilized society! 
91. This is the basic protections these bars which have harbored this behavior for so long 
can do.  
92. This should have been a law a long time ago. I do not understand why there have not 
been more crack downs on this.  
93. To ensure the safety of the public.  
94. To help keep the community safe and prevent drink spiking. 
95. To not mince words - drink spiking is a heinous and deplorable crime, and is closely 
associated with sexual violence among university students. We should do everything 
we can to show that Tempe is a safe place for all people, and that good people are not 
driven out of public spaces by the malicious actors in our midst. This cannot be 
accomplished with silence, complicity, or pretending the problem doesn't exist. RAINN 
reports that 25% of undergraduate women on college campuses experience sexual 
assault - far too high. This ordinance will not solve the deep and tragic problems our 
society has with sexual violence, but it is a tool at our disposal, and is the right way of

going about this. It's preventative, nonviolent, focuses on harm reduction, and focuses 
on a culture of safety (engineering controls and administrative controls for safety 
before using punitive means). Bars submitting a security plan is entirely reasonable, 
and reporting mandates in the ordinance will give us real data which is the first step to 
solving any problem.  
96. We live in a college town. It could prevent young adults from being spiked.. men and 
women  
97. We need to protect everyone, and use this as a prevention tool. 
98. We should take the actions to ensure people can feel safe when going out to a 
bar/establishment selling drinks. 
99. While at first it may be awkward, the city has the opportunity to establish an important 
precedent by normalizing these measures. Normalization, in turn, helps individual 
patrons feel more comfortable accessing safety measures.  
100. Women are most vulnerable and often don't report the ensuing date rape .  
101. Women are very, very vulnerable 
102. Women should feel safe  
103. Yes, if patrons have to pay something otherwise it will be misused and unfair to the bar 
owner 
104. Yes. Anything we can do to keep people safe is worth the extra cost  
 
No Responses: 
1. 
ASU should have a mandatory educational program on all dangers students could 
encounter  
2. 
Covers can be lifted and a test is not protection  
3. 
Does not address greek life  
4. 
Does not help at parties  
5. 
Does not help at parties  
6. 
Does not help at parties  
7. 
Does not help with Frat parties  
8. 
Does not prevent anything from happening  
9. 
Does not stop anything 
10. Even if test kits are available or education is provided, people may not use it.  Cover 
the containers to prevent spiking. I practices this in the 80's... 
11. Every time the city of Tempe tries to do something claiming to help, it cost the 
residence and small businesses more money.    
12. Forcing bars/restaurants to have this opens up liability that might have unintended 
consequences.  I also think that this will stigmatize the city as dangerous for single 
travelers and give the impression we have more of a problem than other similar towns 
(of similar size and/or with universities) 
13. I do not. I think this is unfair to businesses, putting more responsibility on them to 
provide all of this and have another thing to be responsible for. People who go out to 
drink should take more responsibility for their drinks and their actions. If someone 
wanted to drug another person, they will find a way to do it. What stops someone from 
lifting the lid to the drink while the other is in the bathroom, etc. I am absolutely against 
spiking drinks of course, I think that people who get caught spiking drinks should be 
convicted/charged with a more serious punishment. However, this, as a business on 
Mill,  only makes staff's jobs harder, and raises expenses.  
14. I don't believe it requires an ordinance. What this needs is public safety dollars shared 
between the city of Tempe and Arizona State University to purchase kits to be placed 
in student housing, the ASU student center, the memorial Union, and any place with

the series 6 license within 5 miles of the center of ASU. We don't need to legislate this. 
The city needs to partner with ASU in order to work on alcohol education for at risk 
groups. Forcing the burden onto businesses is not the key here. If the city really cared 
about doing something they would put their money to use. Allocate a portion of public 
health dollars, DUI ticket dollars and the like.  
15. I don't believe that any of proposed solutions are appropriate. There is a presumptive 
risk for frequenting establishments of ill repute.  May it be bars, late night restaurants, 
clubs, venues, or hotels.  Individuals are choosing to patron the establishment; in this 
choice comes the acceptance risk and exposure to undesirable actors.  This is not a 
new issue, written about as early as 612BC in Habakkuk.  It is not the duty of the 
proprietor to provide this level of aegis. My contention is the police need to fulfill their 
contract with the people in Tempe to enforce the laws on the books and city legislature 
to refrain from writing laws/ordinances that would strong arm the "Proprietors" to 
become "Protectors" by threat of legal and financial repercussions. Law enforcement 
could include dedicated sworn investigative teams, utilizing emerging technology and 
current CCTV systems and physical presence to necessitate a decline in presumptive 
drink spiking.  Even better yet, leave natural selection, and consequences for actions 
in the hands of those making the choices.   If a bar wants to do this wonderful, I bet 
sales will go up. If patrons feel unsafe then they won't attend and sales follow. You 
shouldn't legislate against stupidity, and this is what this ordnance is attempting at the 
cost of the proprietors.  
16. I don't support this ordinance because it doesn't actually address the root issue. 
Tempe has ongoing problems enforcing existing alcohol laws, particularly around 
underage drinking at licensed establishments. We've seen repeated incidents involving 
large numbers of underage drinkers, yet those businesses continue operating and 
reoffending. Adding a new mandate for bars and restaurants, while the city struggles to 
enforce basic drinking-age requirements, is not an effective use of time or resources 
and is unlikely to reduce harm. If the city believes certain tools are helpful, it should 
provide them directly or focus first on consistent enforcement of current laws, rather 
than shifting responsibility onto businesses without addressing the underlying 
enforcement gaps. 
17. I don't think it is the responsibility of the bar.  I think general awareness is most 
important, I think prosecution of criminals engaging in this is important.  There should 
be clear, easy ways for bars to be able to report this activity for prosecution.  I do not 
think adding more responsibility to small businesses will help.  Available self 
awareness information and putting responsibility on individuals to help themselves will 
be the ultimate best decision.  Requiring a bar and creating an additional liability 
perceived or not for a business to play the role of chemist or instructor or supplier of 
goods to a customer so they or the bar can test a drink is not realistic and it makes a 
false sense of security for the customer.  A better approach as most things go, is 
awareness, education and prosecution of the spiker.  I have no doubt that there is not 
one bar that condones or does not already try to prevent this.  This is a shared 
responsibility, and this proposed ordinance would create a false sense of security.  
18. I don't think this is reasonable for a restaurant to have to implement where the drinks 
are being prepared by a bartender and served at a table where the guests remain 
seated. It would make sense for bars or nightclubs where people are holding drinks, 
mingling, dancing, walking around etc. but in seated venues people keep their drinks 
on the table in front of them and its not accessible to others in the same way it would 
be in a bar or club.

19. I might support the provisions if it they were somehow targeting dance clubs, or 
specific places where patrons routinely leave their drinks unattended. I don't feel like 
this is necessary at any of the bars, breweries or restaurants that I frequent. 
20. I strongly feel this does NOT prevent drink spiking and also puts an unfair amount of 
liability on a bar owner. Patrons are more likely to spike drinks and this does not 
prevent this from happening. I would believe that most drink spiking happens during 
consumption, not by the bartender. To prevent this, you would have to test before each 
drink. This sounds like a money chasing ordinance which will benefit a company and a 
representative (receiving $ from the producer). Bad ordinance!  
21. I think it's too hard on the bars and restaurants too many loop holes that could hurt 
these businesses in the long run. Allowing the kits in bathrooms is always an option so 
it's up to the patron to get the strip and test it where there is no liability after the 
bartender makes and hands the drink to the patron   
22. If the government wants to put this in place, the government should be the one 
providing these kits for free. This is an additional burden for the establishments and is 
not a fail safe solution. 
23. If to be a crime leave it to the state.  Just another way to increase costs for 
businesses. Life just can't be perfect with added cost that likely provides no actual 
benefit or result. If you think you are spiked  don't drink it!  
24. It does  very little.     
25. It does not provide a solution or protect patrons. It only puts an additional financial 
burden on small businesses 
26. It should not be the responsibility of the small businesses and breweries this would 
affect. Tempe police have a terrible history of ignoring victims when incidents such as 
drink spiking or sexual assault happen and this seems like a way to pass the blame to 
businesses when they do nothing to help victims. Tempe police should provide these 
kits free of charge to businesses if they are so concerned. They let people who spike 
drinks and/or assault people get away without consequences or punishment so maybe 
they should work on that first as a way to prevent this issue or provide the kits for free.  
27. It's a good idea, concerned about how it will be implemented, and the perceived level 
of safety it will create.  Maybe a better way to go about it is to serve everything in a 
sippy cup with a lid instead. 
28. It's not a practical solution to a real problem. Research shows that never leaving your 
drink unattended and sticking with trusted company is more effective.  
29. It's opening up new exposures for the restaurant and bar owners. 
30. Just another cost to businesses that will be passed on to customers and I seriously 
doubt they will work.  
31. Making private businesses provide this is government overreach.  It is already tough to 
run a business and stay profitable and now you want to add more cost and the need 
for a place to store all of these items.  If people want or need this they can buy their 
own. 
32. N/A 
33. No actual benefit or protection just theater 
34. No preventative actions  
35. No, this is not an evidence based solution.  You're wasting money and putting the 
burden on the victim.   
36. None of the provisions actually prevent drink spiking.    
37. Not effective 
38. Not effective and no way to measure effectiveness.    
39. not logical

40. On campus education  
41. Over regulation. More unnecessary costs for the establishment. 
42. People can buy their own safety precautions if they want to. Think it's up the individual 
to purchase things like this. Restaurant business is hard enough with so many things 
to store and organize.  
43. Personal responsibility versus Government over reach. 
Proactive Safety Measures Already in Place. Boondocks already implements robust 
guest safety protocols, including staff training on incident management, visible security 
presence, and proactive crowd monitoring. Alignment with Ordinance Intent. The 
ordinance aims to raise awareness and provide prevention tools. Boondocks already 
meets this intent through staff vigilance, guest communication, and safe service 
practices. Operational Burden Consideration. Additional requirements (inventory 
management of test kits, signage mandates, etc.) would duplicate existing efforts and 
divert resources from proven, hands-on safety measures. - Vendor & Staff 
Accountability. Bartenders and servers are trained to recognize suspicious behavior 
and intervene quickly, ensuring real-time prevention rather than relying solely on test 
kits.  
44. Shouldn't be the city government's responsibility 
45. Silly 
46. Stay home or use common sense.  Next you will private businesses to tuck people in 
bed.  
47. Supercilious  
48. Tempe would be the only city in AZ currently with these laws. Knowing and advertising 
that there are protocols regarding spiking will make people want to visit the bars less 
and raise concern that there are increased issues in Tempe vs other cities. Bar owners 
shouldn't have to be liable to provide the kits or speak on them. As an adult of age able 
to drink, one should be able to be careful and mindful of their beverage. 
49. The adults in the establishments can police themselves. 
50. The City of Tempe should focus on reducing crime, underage drinking ,making the 
streets safe from homeless crazies. If the problem is this great why put the 
responsibility on the business owner who is already over taxed over burdened with 
rules and outdated regulations. Why not have the City make available to all residents 
and college students safe kits. On another note, why not restrict the sale of the the 
drug that is being used to spike beverages. Get to the source of the problem, not put 
the responsibility on the business owner to manage a problem government has control 
over???? We need the city to practice some common since here. 
51. The majority of drink spiking or getting a "roofie" happens outside of bars or nite clubs 
or restaurants. Does not prevent anything.   
52. The regulatory process surrounding legislation that mandates drink test kits for 
restaurants and bars often ends up being more of a burden than a benefit. One of the 
key issues is the complexity and cost of compliance. Smaller establishments, 
particularly independent bars and restaurants, may struggle with the financial and 
logistical burden of acquiring, implementing, and properly maintaining these test kits. 
This can divert resources away from more essential areas of their operations, like staff 
training or customer experience. Additionally, the effectiveness and reliability of these 
test kits can vary. If the kits aren't standardized or if they produce false positives or 
negatives, businesses could face unnecessary legal complications, liability issues, or 
damage to their reputation. The lack of clarity in terms of which types of kits meet the 
legal requirements can create confusion, leading to inconsistent enforcement or 
misinterpretation of the rules. From an operational standpoint, it also adds a layer of

inefficiency. For busy establishments, taking the time to regularly test drinks could slow 
down service, frustrate employees, and negatively impact the customer experience. 
When regulations fail to account for the reality on the ground, it can result in a 
disconnect between the intention of the law and its practical implementation. 
Moreover, if the legislation is not carefully crafted with input from industry 
stakeholders, such as restaurant owners or hospitality workers, it can inadvertently 
punish businesses that are already doing their best to ensure safe alcohol 
consumption. Instead of enhancing public safety, such poorly thought-out regulations 
might contribute to more bureaucracy and increase costs without achieving the desired 
outcomes. 
53. There are already enough laws on the books about assaulting people.  No need to add 
more and charge people more at restaurants and bars 
54. This is an unnecessary interference with the operation of the targeted businesses. I 
have no doubt that the members on the study committee are well meaning,  but these 
measures will have little or no effect on the incidence of drink spiking in Tempe, while 
increasing the cost of operating these businesses. Notably missing from this proposed 
ordinance is any method to monitor and determine whether the ordinance is 
accomplishing its intended goal. Without such, these  "feel good" ordinances can pile 
up, increasing the cost of doing business, without accomplishing anything. 
55. This is clearly govt overreach.   
56. This Ordinance does not mitigate the risk.   
57. This will pass liability onto the establishment which is very unfair and one of the most 
unAmerican things that can happen. Hold the people committing the crime 
responsible, hold the people going out to drink accountable. This is NOT the 
responsibility of the establishment. Keep government out of our lives! 
58. To create a better place, we need to take responsibility for our own actions  which 
includes being aware of our surroundings rather than rely on govt to create more laws 
and more bureaucracy. If we were each given a million dollar prize to go to a Tempe 
bar for several hours and NOT get our drink spiked without noticing it, we'd win that bet 
because being constantly vigilant is worth a million dollars to us. So we can all do it, it's 
just a question of motivation. Live as though your health and safety is worth more than 
a million dollar prize. That people in the past have been spiked isn't the issue 
59. totally misguided, impractical and ineffective for sure. this will just raise prices to 
consumers and open additional exposure to bar/restaurant owners and staff. It will also 
have a negative impact on service and inconvenience the 98% of people that are not 
at risk of drink spiking. Go after the individuals responsible, not the people working 
hard for a living. If I can go to Scottsdale and drink without a lid or in Tempe with a lid, 
that's a no brainer and why anyone would think it's a smart idea to follow California 
politics is beyond me. 
60. Waste of time and effort, and you're asking for a bunch of work for free. Storage, 
updating POS systems, training employees and management of stock. These are all 
things that will take away from the operation.  
61. We already have a drink spiking safety program.    IT IS CALLED THE BUDDY 
SYSTEM!    AND IT IS FREE!   
62. Will increase pricing to guests in an environment where prices are increasing rapidly  
 
Not Sure Responses: 
1. 
1) I think the upcharge option of 20% of the cost of the cocktail or drink is going to 
cause a drink inflation problem in Tempe which will drive nightlife to other cities over

time 2) As long as this is an option and not a requirement I think it can make sense 3) 
incentivizing the establishment via discounted liqour license is good 
2. 
Concern is cost to bars that pass cost onto customers like we see with wage increases 
or cogs increases 
3. 
Exactly how many people are impacted by this? The answer I heard from the Council 
member did not quantify the need for this action. As a taxpayer, I wonder why we're 
spending time on this? 
4. 
It is not the government's job to protect people from making poor choices.  
5. 
Need better understanding  
6. 
The test kit costs are not shared. So I don't support making those mandatory. I do think 
drinking covers should be available as well as signage 
7. 
Unsure, I feel it could give people a false sense of security but if the effort only costs 
business owners approximately $300 to $400 and it could just save one life and 
possibly prevent others from being harmed. A lot of young girls especially are nieve 
and aren't aware of the danger or how to prevent it from happening with some 
education it might be possible to help. I'm more concerned about the college and 
parties I think more is happening there however vs bars, etc. 
8. 
What is the impact on the business.  Will prices increase to meet this requirement?  
 
5. Have you ever personally experienced what you believe was drink spiking?     
 
Responses: 290 
 
6. Do you personally know someone who has experienced or suspects they have 
experienced drink spiking?  
 
Responses: 289 
76%
24%
No (219)
Yes (71)
44%
56%
No (128)
Yes (161)

7. "If yes,” Where did the experience take place? 
• 
2016 for my own experience, unsure but I've heard stories of two other people who had 
their drinks spiked. 
• 
A bar in Gilbert 
• 
A bar in North Scottsdale 
• 
A bar in Old Town Scottsdale and then a bar on Mill Ave, I can't remember what specific 
bar 
• 
A bar in Phoenix--don't remember the name, unfortunately. 
• 
Almost 14 years ago when I fist became of legal drinking age, my drink was spiked at a 
bar near ASU. I think it's been shut down since then, I can't remember the name. Most 
recently in 2021 my drink was spiked at a bar in Mesa. 
• 
Arcadia tavern  
• 
ASU's Greek Leadership Village 
• 
At a bar 
• 
At a bar 
• 
At a bar 
• 
At a bar in Old Town Scottsdale  
• 
At a bar in south Phoenix that is now closed.  
• 
At a bar in tempe 
• 
At a bar outside of Tempe  
• 
At a bar while having a calm night - so when they got really trashed out if nowhere it was 
very alarming 
• 
At a bar/club where young, college-aged people attend. 
• 
At a club 
• 
at a frat party  
• 
At a Greek Life event 
• 
At a home 
• 
At a house partty in downtown Phoenix. 
• 
At a music venue in Tempe  
• 
At a private party 
• 
At a restaurant, but I believe it was committed by staff at said restaurant. I would not 
have used a test kit if available however because it happened I believe before receiving 
my drink and was not suspected until later when symptoms became more apparent. 
• 
At bar on Mill Avenue  
• 
At bars 
• 
At HiFi in Old Town Scottsdale, my friend went from being fine to needing an ambulance 
within minutes due to a sudden loss of coherence. At the hospital, it was confirmed that 
her drink had been spiked. 
• 
At the bars  
• 
At Varsity  
• 
Bachelor Party 
• 
Bar 
• 
Bar 
• 
Bar and house party 
• 
Bar in scottsdale. I had a disussion with the person who experienced and she strongly 
believed this would not have prevented her drink from being spiked.  
• 
Bars and nightclubs

• 
Bedroom  
• 
Cake in Scottsdale  
• 
California bar 
• 
Casey Moores 
• 
Chicago 
• 
College bar  
• 
Cornish pasty on Mill Avenue.  
• 
Devils Advocate 
• 
Devil's Advocate  
• 
Downtown chandler arizona 
• 
Every instance was at a bar  
• 
Five years ago 
• 
Flagstaff and Tucson 
• 
Frat 
• 
Frat boys spiked out drinks at house part 
• 
Frat house  
• 
Frat party 
• 
Frat party 
• 
Frat spiked the non alcoholic drinks  
• 
Greek party house  
• 
Happens constantly in most of the bars in tempe  
• 
Hifi - Scottsdale  
• 
I don't recall 
• 
I had friends whose drinks were spiked in both Norman, Oklahoma and Cambridge, 
Massachusetts. 
• 
I have been drink-spiked at a private residence during a party. I have known individuals 
spiked at restaurants and at private residences.  
• 
I have had multiple friends who have had had their drinks spiked in Tempe and Phoenix  
• 
I know multiple women who have reported drink spiking and suspected drink spiking at 
clubs, bars, and restaurants around Tempe. 
• 
I know someone who had their drink spiked in Scottsdale.  
• 
I know someone who suspects their drink was spiked at Varsity, and someone who was 
spiked at Varsity 
• 
I refuse to say 
• 
I was 14 years old when my drink was spiked at the Paradise Valley Mall (of all places) 
by a 30ish year old man. My friend had her drink spiked at a Scottsdale nightclub.  
• 
I was at a bar in Florida where a friend had her drink spiked 
• 
In a college bar 
• 
In a frat house 
• 
In a private residence.   A woman drugged a male. 
• 
In CASA and The Tavern 
• 
In college at a house party 
• 
In PHX 
• 
In Sedona. And Tempe.  
• 
It took place in tempe on Mill Ave.  
• 
It was a bar called drunk monk  
• 
It was not the drink but the pot they shared 
• 
Las Vegas NV

• 
Le Girls 
• 
Mexico  
• 
Mill & Old Town Scottsdale  
• 
Mill ave 
• 
Mill Ave  
• 
Mill Avenue 
• 
Mill Avenue and Scottsdale. 
• 
Mill avenue; possibly Fat Tuesday 
• 
Mine was at a Phoenix bar. Two friends had it happen in Tempe bars.  
• 
Multiple locations in Tempe  
• 
Murphy's Law 
• 
My wife has, many times, had men attempt to place things in drinks. She is constantly 
stressed on a night out when it comes to checking her and her friends drinks. This is a 
constant problem for women, especially in college areas. She experience the same thing 
in Florida as well. 
• 
N/A 
• 
Nashville  
• 
Near/around ASU, not specifically Mill Ave.  
• 
New Orleans  
• 
Nightclub 
• 
Not in AZ. Dive bars in the midwest 
• 
Not in Tempe. 
• 
Off campus house  
• 
Old town Scottsdale bar 
• 
Old town Scottsdale once,  mill Ave regularly 
• 
One was at a private home party.  
• 
Out of country.  
• 
Outside of Tempe  
• 
Party on campus 
• 
Phoenix 
• 
Phoenix 
• 
Phoenix  
• 
Private home  
• 
San Francisco, Bangkok 
• 
Scottsdale 
• 
Scottsdale 
• 
Scottsdale  
• 
Scottsdale  
• 
St Elmos Bar,  Bisbee AZ 
• 
Swizzle sticks 
• 
Tempe 
• 
Tempe at Funky Monk on Mill Ave  
• 
Tempe bar on Mill Ave 
• 
tempe bars 
• 
Tempe beach  
• 
Tempe mill avenue  
• 
Tempe, Arcadia, Long Island

• 
Tempe.  I've heard it happen before at 414 but very infrequently over the 10 years we've 
been on Mill  
• 
Texas 
• 
The majority of  spiking does not occur in bars , restaurants, or nite clubs.   
• 
They added vodka to the fruit punch 
• 
They put hash on the cigarette we smoked   
• 
This too place at taco Tuesday  
• 
Twice in downtown Tempe  
• 
Unknown  
• 
Vegas bars, and bars in general Phoenix area. 
• 
Very prevalent in Tempe. I tested positive for multiple at home tests after a bad night 
• 
While bar hopping unsure which bar.  
• 
While my cousin was in college, she had her drink spiked and described the experience 
as an out of body experience, almost like she was watching a TV show. It unfortunately 
happened to me twice: both on a college campus in my early 20's. The first time I 
remember absolutely nothing and the second time was eerily similar to my cousin's 
experience. Both times I attempted to report to the police and was not met with any 
support, so I did not proceed.  
• 
Zuma, CASA, & Varsity  
 
8. Which of the following would make you feel safer at nightlife venues?  
 
• 
Other - 2 and 3, it won't let me chose only two of the above options  
• 
Other - Accountable serving practices. Providing interactive service managing any 
situations that seem out of line 
• 
Other - All of the above plus education to the consumers  
• 
Other - all, except drink covers 
• 
Other - Being aware of it with information for self protection.  I would not want the bar to 
have to provide anything extra.  
• 
Other - Drink covers and test kits 
• 
Other - Enforcement of existing laws 
• 
Other - Go out with a friend  
• 
Other - Greek life orientation and education  
• 
Other - I'd add the penalties for the drink spikers  
• 
Other - if the government did their jobs and pursued the perpetrators and individuals 
were educated on being more responsible 
• 
Other - If this is a big problem. Optional drink covers would be far more preventative, 
and not to mention much less costly.   
• 
Other - None  
• 
Other - Not tweet kits and drink covers 
4%
4%
6%
7%
28%
51%
Available test kits at bars or nightclubs (12)
Signage at bars and in bathrooms outlining
drink spiking protections measures (12)
Available drink covers at bars or nightclubs
(18)
Other (19)
None of the above (82)
All of the above (149)

• 
Other - police 
• 
Other - provide lids and straws for drinks, or sell items only in recyclable aluminum or 
glass bottles. 
• 
Other - signage for "Angel Shots" in the bathrooms is a cool option 
• 
Other - stay home 
• 
Other - Test kits and drink covers are the solution.  We need to start holding the 
predators accountable.  This starts with making drugging a victim in conjuction with a 
rape a more serious crime. Date rape drugs should be considered a deadly weapon 
when charging 
 
Responses: 292 
9. Would you be more likely to visit a Tempe bar or nightclub with these 
protections available as opposed to one without? 
 
Responses: 291 
 
10. Do you have any additional comments about the proposed ordinance? 
1. 
address greek life problems at asu 
2. 
Again, having lids and test kits  available doesn't provide protection. Protection is only 
provided if those items are used and I believe few if any patrons will actually use them. 
Signage won't stop a person from spiking a drink and patrons are already aware of the 
risk. If patrons should be responsible for their own protection. 
3. 
Against the proposed ordinance  
4. 
As a non drinker bars are not necessarily my go to place, however I very much 
appreciate their place in our community as centers of fun and celebration for folks.   As 
safe as we can keep them is worth the effort 
5. 
As I stated earlier, an ordinance isn't necessary. If the city really believes and helping 
prevent this, they would just allocate public health funds towards purchasing kiss, 
perhaps in partnership with Arizona State University in order to protect those most at 
risk. This only shifts the burden away from the city and Arizona University, while trying 
to appear like they're doing something to combat this, and places undue burden on 
small businesses, most of which are probably not likely to be at the center of the health 
risk area.  
6. 
As someone who has friends who have experienced drugging situations, I agree that 
there should be regulations in place to help prevent these types of situations from 
occurring, within reason. However, i truly dont think its reasonable restaurants where 
guests are being fully served and remain at their table, some guests dont even drink 
alcohol. So for a restaurant to be held responsible for carrying test kits that likely wont 
be used seems like a waste. If someone is on a first date or unknown situation they 
7%
39%
54%
Not sure (21)
No (114)
Yes (156)

could bring their own, but it would be hard to test your drink while seated at a table, it 
would be completely obvious and then what happens after if the test comes back? is 
the restaurant responsible for calling police, ensuring that person stays there, because 
that opens up a can of worms of liability on restaurants as occupiers for both sides. If 
the test is wrong or inaccurate then the restaurant can be sued by the other person 
because they called the cops, or kept them there while they investigated or 
embarrassed them. Restaurant staff arent police. It would make more sense to have 
them available in situations where people are going out to get more drinks and are 
likely to not be seated or eating food with their drinks. Have them available in bars, 
nightclubs, college campuses, doctors offices, etc.  
7. 
Bars and restaurants should be encouraged to use covers as a default rather than 
putting the onus on the individual, who may feel awkward asking for a cover in front of 
a date. A patron could always remove the cover themselves at the table if they feel 
comfortable.  
8. 
Bars who push back on this show they support the problem  
9. 
Community education for the win 
10. Do not pass this garbage. 
11. Does not prevent.  
12. Does zero for actual prevention.  
13. don't add another layer of regulations, put more effort into prosecuting people 
committing crimes 
14. Drink covers and signage encouraging patrons to pay close attention to their drinks 
would be far more effective. If a consumers has concerns about their drink being 
spiked, they should be offered a lid. Also, if a consumer has concerns. They should be 
encouraged to always have their drink in their hand. I can also see a patron purposely 
spiking their drink simply to generate a law suit. I appreciate the effort but this is not 
the solution. Not even close.   
15. Drink lids are not going to deter a person from spiking their drink.  They will simply put 
it back on.   
16. Educational opportunities at ASU  
17. Enforce current laws and prosecute people fully rather than slapping them on the 
wrists  
18. foolish 
19. Freshman orientation program on safety for all incoming  
20. Generally we freedom-loving Americans all prefer less Governmental regulation and 
red tape HOWEVER  we all can support the obvious regulations and things that make 
our lives safer.... speed limits, for example,  Screening volunteers,  coaches and 
teachers to reduce the chance of criminals abusing children.  Secure mail-in voting, etc 
etc.   This proposed ordinance falls well into the net-positive.  If a bar complains they 
probably also accept fake IDs yes, that bar is guilty of serving minors and deserves to 
have their license suspended 
21. Go out with GF keep an eye on each other  
22. Go out with someone you trust and keep eyes on each other.   This should be taught 
at Freshman Orientation  
23. Having drink covers available would make a huge difference in the level of safety I feel 
as a woman. It can happen in an instant so having that extra measure would be 
amazing. Also having a way to report if you think you've been spiked. Maybe a button 
in the bathroom to alert the bar staff etc 
24. How do you keep someone from lifting a drink lid and spiking drinks though?

25. I am glad that this issue is being taken seriously in Tempe. 
26. I believe this presents a strong incentive for the City of Tempe. Raising awareness 
about protective options can positively impact the safety and experiences of people 
who just want to enjoy a night out at a bar. 
27. I can remember the vulnerability of being a young woman in a bar. I would have 
appreciated more options to protect myself during that stage of my life.  
28. I do question why the Government continues to dumb-down the citizens and strip them 
all from personal responsibility. Once sexual predators that spike drinks start going to 
prison and being labeled as sexual predators, the issue will go away by simply holding 
them responsible for their actions. This, without putting the onus on the hard-working 
people in our industry; making them responsible for something that they have nothing 
to do with.  
29. I don't feel like it is the venue's responsibility to monitor your drink after you receive it. 
30. I don't go to clubs because of that 
31. I don't think that offering the facilities to upcharge customers is the right approach I do 
think that allowing them a discounted liquor license is a strong signal 
32. I have heard from reputable sources that the chamber of commerce, as pushed by 
bars & restaurants oppose this ordinance. If you legitimately believe rape and assault 
are good for business, or just can't be bothered to do the bare minimum to keep 
people in a space you're responsible for safe - come to city council meeting and say it 
to our faces, loud and proud, or get out of town. The ordinance clearly does not 
increase liability for bar owners, so that's not the issue. 
33. I like the idea of combatting this issue but this should not be placed on the businesses.  
34. I love that Tempe is taking on this initiative, because it's often a topic that's overlooked. 
As a female who enjoys a night out, it would make me feel safer to come out to Tempe 
bars and clubs more than any other city with this new addition.  
35. I only went to Old Town once and Mill once, got drugged at both, never went out again 
36. I think it is a simple way to protect people. It would give everyone a means to protect 
themselves. 
37. I think it should be an option that's available to each bar or establishment in the area 
with a possible incentive but I do not think it should be an enforceable requirement. I 
also feel it could give patrons a false sense of security.  
38. I think the awareness that it's happening is good because it's probably not something 
most people think about.  
39. I think this is huge. I didn't realize this was such an issue until I was dating my wife. 
This would make a big difference to young women in Tempe. 
40. I would feel safer knowing bars and clubs take drink spiking prevention seriously.  
41. I'd like to see marketing that promotes safe habits in general and isn't focused on 
scaring individuals. I do worry that calling this out at a bar may make some people 
think "Wow, was drink spiking a problem at this place?" Unsure how the message 
could be sent that kits (for ex.) are a nice to have feature that shows the bar cares, 
rather than cause for concern.  
42. If the city wants to meaningfully address this issue, a city-funded awareness and 
education program would be more effective than a mandatory business requirement. A 
one-year pilot with trained ambassadors in the community distributing free test kits, 
providing education materials, and offering easy access to resources through city 
offices could reduce harm without placing another unfunded mandate on small 
businesses. This type of proactive, data-informed approach would also allow the city to 
evaluate impact before imposing permanent requirements.

43. I'm honestly not even sure why people are opposed to this. It's an easy, inexpensive 
action that could help a whole lot of people 
44. It may be costly to businesses for test kits, so there might be opposition there. But I 
think having a drink cover option is something every bar can accommodate. 
45. It's a great idea to keep everybody safer from predators.  
46. It's obviou this proposal has been made without doing proper research and cherry 
picking information. The person(s) behind this this are guilty of what is called called 
confirmation bias.  Example : No even makes a portable consumer use drug test  kit 
that tests for all rape drugs.     
47. It's the least we can do.  
48. Just do not drink if you are worried  
49. Just use common sense and watch your  drink.  This is clearly gov overreach on a non 
problem.  Common sense would be only go out with a friend.   It's called the buddy 
system and it's used in all sorts of activities for a very long time.   
50. Long overdue, but better late than never. 
51. Mandatory incoming education to students  
52. More education, awareness and prosecution of the spiker would be best.  
53. no 
54. No 
55. No 
56. NO. 
57. nope!  
58. Nope. It's great!  
59. Not necessary  
60. Not preventative  
61. Not preventative  
62. On campus education would be more effective  
63. Overreach 
64. Probably the dumbest cash grab ever. 
65. silly 
66. Sound be a win win for Tempe citizens and business that serve alcohol. 
67. Thank you for proposing this and your attempts to protect people from drink spiking.  
68. The ordinance does not address spiking the bug juice at the Greek house parties  
69. The ordinance is missing the most important ways to stop the problem.  Drink spiking 
should be part of ASU orientation  
70. The ordinance is not effective.   
71. The proposed ordinance does not address or mitigate the issue or dangers students 
face at ASU  
72. The proposed ordinance has no business in business.   None of the proposed rules 
and requirements will actually be effective.    I support Tempe law enforcement to do 
their job.  If someone has an issue they should call 911 and not some test kit that may 
or may give correct results.  
73. The tax incentive is a good way to go. Business owners (rightfully) will always push 
back against government involvement that will cost them money, so making sure they 
have financial motivation to be involved is key for success.  
74. The Tempe proposed anti drink spiking ordnance is a perfect example of Government 
ignoring common sense and going too far.

75. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this. We know drink spiking happens and 
what comes after drink spiking and this is the least we can do to protect patrons. 
76. This contributes to a culture of fear and distrust, and if somebody feels strongly 
enough about it, it should be on them to have this with them.  
77. This is a great step forward  
78. This is a waste of time and resources.   This will lead to an increased cost for people 
who want to frequent Tempe bars. 
79. This is like mandating wearing a mask to prevent other people from transmitting and 
others getting sick, and the establishment is required to provide the mask, but if 
someone gets sick, the person that got sick can turn around and sue the establishment 
for getting them sick. 
80. This is not a realistic solution to this problem. 
81. This is sickening and needs to be looked at! This problem needs to stop!  
82. This needs to be free - NOT at cost. Tempe does NOT need another way to add cost. 
The economy is out of control - the photo radar, the updating of neighborhoods (1st St, 
Farmer & 1st) to 2 hour parking) - enough is enough with another cost measure. Mill 
avenue (my neighborhood for work and home of over 6 years) is in complete turnover 
and soulless now.  
83. This NEEDS to be passed. There is no reason not to pass this. It is a positive change 
that impacts the health and safety of Tempe residents and guests. 
84. This really seems like a no brainer. 
85. Waste of government governance  
86. We need tougher laws and enforcement for crimes involving drugging someone. 
Increase the penalties and make laws holding bars accountable. Watch how fast the 
problem is fixed if bars are held accountable for rapes including drugging like they are 
for DUI. Bars should have drink covers as standard practice and surveillance, so when 
an incident happens you can prosecute. Make drugging an attempted rape charge and 
rape that involves drugs charged as rape with a deadly weapon.  
87. Why is our tax money being wasted on this.   
88. why is this necessary 
89. You are looking at the wrong problem and not the correct fix    
90. Youth have eaten detergent pods. We cannot govern common sense.  
 
11. What gender do you identify with? 
 
Responses: 290 
 
 
2%
3%
32%
62%
Non-conforming (5)
I prefer not to answer (10)
Male (94)
Female (181)

12. What is your age? 
 
Responses: 291 
 
IV. 
Emails 
 
1. Dec. 4, 2025 - The Tempe proposed anti drink spiking ordnance is a perfect 
example of Government ignoring common sense and going too far.    There 
already is a drink spiking safety program.  GO OUT WITH A BUDDY.  OH WAIT 
IT HAS A NAME!   IT IS  CALLED THE BUDDY SYSTEM!    AND ITS FREE!   
The fact you think this will not be a cost to a business is comical even with your 
offset proposal on license fees.   
 
2. Dec. 5, 2025 – Arizona State University Undergraduate Student Government 
Letter of Support (see following page) 
 
3. Dec. 11, 2025 – Arizona State University Graduate Student Government Letter of 
Support (see following page) 
 
4. Dec. 12, 2025 - Planned Parenthood Generation Action at Arizona State 
University  Letter of Support (see following page) 
 
5. Dec. 19, 2025 – Arizona Students Association Letter of Support (see following 
page) 
 
3%
2%
4%
7%
14%
18%
28%
24%
I prefer not to answer (8)
75+ (7)
65-74 (12)
55-64 (20)
45-54 (40)
35-44 (53)
25-34 (81)
18-24 (70)

THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT GOVERNMENT, TEMPE SENATE 
TWENTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE 
NOVEMBER 18, 2025 
 
SENATE RESOLUTION #3 
INTRODUCED BY 
 
LANI KUJAWSKI 
THE COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES 
​
 
AUTHORIZED BY: 
 
ANDREA LOPEZ-ESPINDOLA  
W.P. CAREY  
 
DIEGO MONTIJO 
W.P. CAREY SCHOOL OF BUSINESS 
 
LOURDES VALDEZ CAZARES  
IRA A. FULTON SCHOOLS OF ENGINEERING 
 
MIA PETERSON  
THE COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES  
 
NIC YONAMINE 
THE COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES 
___________________________________________________________________________________ 
A Resolution to Support Anti-Drink Spiking Legislation from the Tempe City Council 
_________________________________________________________________________ 
The Undergraduate Student Government, Tempe Senate, 
WHEREAS, the Undergraduate Student Government of Tempe is committed to supporting safety 
measures that protect the students of Arizona State University in and around the Tempe 
community; 
WHEREAS, the Undergraduate Student Government of Tempe collaborated with the City of 
Tempe on an Anti–Drink Spiking Campaign tabling event that gathered information regarding 
students’ experiences with drink spiking, revealing that over 50% of surveyed ASU students 
either knew someone who had been a victim or had been victims themselves, establishing drink

spiking as a significant safety concern; 
WHEREAS, recognizing the seriousness of this threat to ASU students and Tempe residents, 
Tempe City Councilmember Randy Keating created a subcommittee focused on developing 
legislation supporting anti–drink spiking measures, including drink covers and drink-testing kits; 
WHEREAS, the proposed legislation would require Tempe bars and nightclubs to make 
drink-spiking test devices available to patrons during operating hours—either free of charge or 
sold at no more than a 20% markup over purchase cost—and to display clear, visible signage 
informing patrons of their availability, while also incentivizing establishments to provide these 
resources at no cost; 
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Undergraduate Student Government Tempe Senate formally 
supports and encourages the Tempe City Council’s anti–drink spiking legislation, recognizing 
that providing test kits and drink covers promotes safer consumption and demonstrates that 
Tempe prioritizes resident safety, especially in a college community; 
BE IT FURTHER RECOMMENDED, that Arizona State University likewise support the Tempe 
City Council’s efforts to enact anti–drink spiking legislation as an essential step toward 
protecting student safety; 
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Undergraduate Student Government Tempe Senate 
stands in solidarity with the Tempe City Council’s efforts to eliminate drink spiking within the 
City of Tempe. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___________________________________​ ​
___________________________________​  
Senate President​
​
​
​
​
Student Body President

Associated Students of ASU 
Graduate Student Government 
 
 
Assembly Resolution 04 
Twenty-Fourth Legislative Session 
 
 
INTRODUCED BY 
Office of the President ​
Alberto Plantillas, Assembly Member – Watts College of Public Service and Community 
 
December 5, 2025 
 
RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT ANTI-DRINK SPIKING LEGISLATION 
FROM THE TEMPE CITY COUNCIL 
 
WHEREAS, the Graduate Student Government is committed to supporting safety 
measures that protect the students of Arizona State University in and around the Tempe 
community. 
 
WHEREAS, the Undergraduate Student Government of Tempe collaborated with the 
City of Tempe on an Anti–Drink Spiking Campaign tabling event that gathered 
information regarding students’ experiences with drink spiking, revealing that over 50% 
of surveyed ASU students either knew someone who had been a victim or had been 
victims themselves, establishing drink spiking as a significant safety concern. Nearly 
80% of students reported that drink spiking was 'common' in local nightlife settings.¹  
 
WHEREAS, recognizing the seriousness of this threat to ASU students and Tempe 
residents, Tempe City Councilmember Randy Keating created a subcommittee focused 
on developing legislation supporting anti–drink spiking measures, including drink covers 
and drink-testing kits.² ³ 
 
WHEREAS, the proposed legislation would require Tempe bars and nightclubs to make 
drink-spiking test devices available to patrons during operating hours—either free of 
charge or sold at no more than a 20% markup over purchase cost—and to display clear, 
visible signage informing patrons of their availability, while also incentivizing 
establishments to provide these resources at no cost. 
 
BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Graduate Student Government formally supports and 
encourages the Tempe City Council’s anti–drink spiking legislation, recognizing that

Associated Students of ASU 
Graduate Student Government 
 
providing test kits and drink covers promotes safer consumption and demonstrates that 
Tempe prioritizes resident safety, especially in a college community.  
 
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, Arizona State University likewise support the 
Tempe City Council’s efforts to enact anti–drink spiking legislation as an essential step 
toward protecting student safety. 
 
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the Graduate Student Government stands in 
solidarity with the Tempe City Council’s efforts to eliminate drink spiking within the City 
of Tempe.  
 
 
 
 
Citations 
 
¹Reagan, K. (2025, November 19). Tempe considering rules to prevent spiked drinks at local bars. 
12news.com. 
https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/valley/tempe-considering-rules-to-prevent-spiked-drinks-local-
bars-nightclubs/75-b07126e5-7d8c-4192-9d46-f37a94803537  
 
²Drink Spiking Education and Prevention Council Subcommittee | City of Tempe, AZ. (2025). 
https://www.tempe.gov/government/mayor-and-city-council/council-subcommittees/drink-spiking-educatio
n-and-prevention-council-subcommittee  
 
³Bell, D., & Alvarado, E. (2025, October 9). Tempe City Council and nonprofits combat drink spiking. The 
Arizona State Press. 
https://www.statepress.com/article/2025/10/politics-tempe-drink-safety-asu-68e74bc973922

Planned Parenthood Generation Action at Arizona State University 
1151 S. Forest Ave,  
Tempe, AZ 85281 
 
 
 
December 12, 2025 
 
Dear Mayor Woods and Members of the Tempe City Council, 
 
We are hopeful that this letter finds you well. We are writing to formally endorse the Drink Spiking 
Education and Prevention Ordinance, which aims to minimize drink spiking in Tempe.  
 
Planned Parenthood Generation Action is an organization that challenges sexual and reproductive 
injustices and stigmas by uplifting the voices of young people, especially those from marginalized 
backgrounds. Our goal is to empower and incite change to make our campus and college community 
safer, more inclusive and empowering for all students to pursue their education with less barriers.  
 
Drink spiking is an issue that concerns us as young people, as a group of intersectionally 
marginalized beings, and as individuals who deeply understand how stigmas and injustices can strip 
one’s autonomy. We are endorsing this ordinance because we believe that in order to protect young 
and marginalized beings, we must fight back against injustices like drink spiking by pushing back 
against the stigmas that have allowed them to occur without consequences for so long.  
 
As young college students, we understand that we are a vulnerable population to making less 
informed decisions, especially under the influence of alcohol. With that said, we are concerned that 
our age group may be more likely to fall victim to predatory behavior such as drink spiking. Many 
young people at bars and nightclubs are experiencing night life for the first time. It is likely that they 
may not yet grasp the possibility that someone may plan to take advantage of their naivety to cause 
them harm. In addition, adding alcohol consumption to the situation creates a deeply unfair scenario 
that puts young people in a much more vulnerable position to being blindly drugged.  
 
Our team of women and non-binary folk of various racial and ethnic backgrounds also feels concern 
toward how drink spiking impacts marginalized students. The impacts of drink spiking, including: 
emotional/physical damage caused by sexual or physical assault, kidnapping, or robbery all have 
disproportionate impacts on marginalized individuals. We worry that these populations are or could 
be targeted the most by drink spiking activity due to prejudice or senses of superiority over any of 
these groups. In addition, we are concerned that students who fit these identities will face more 
barriers with seeking protection or justice in these situations.

On top of being vulnerable to drink spiking due to their age, young victims of drink spiking often do 
not report the incidents. As students ages 18-21, we feel that it is easy to feel embarrassed or 
ashamed in this situation. We also recognize that this is an issue that is rarely discussed or heard of, 
so many may not know how to talk about their experiences. By talking about this issue and taking 
action, we believe that victims will feel more empowered to seek justice and others will become 
more informed and prepared.  
 
Overall, drink spiking is an issue that affects the Arizona State University community. We are deeply 
appreciative of the City council for considering this issue and its impacts on young and marginalized 
people, especially within the ASU community. By addressing this issue, Tempe is creating a path for 
victims to feel empowered to share their stories, while pushing more Tempe residents to take the time 
to understand the issue and prepare themselves against it. We feel hopeful that the presence of drink 
covers and test strips at bars and clubs will be a reminder for young people to make informed 
decisions. We also agree that night life will feel much safer for our community of young, 
marginalized students.  
 
Sincerely,  
 
Planned Parenthood Generation at Arizona State University 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Marlee Valenzuela  
President of Planned Parenthood Generation Action at Arizona State University

Arizona Students’ Association Supports Anti-Drink Spiking Legislation 
 
The Arizona Students’ Association firmly and without hesitation supports Anti-Drink Spiking 
Legislation in the City of Tempe. Across our universities, students everywhere are desperate for 
their leaders to rise to the challenge of protecting and uplifting higher education. Where 
drink-spiking has been a tool of violence and danger to students, the support for this legislation 
is critical for the future of our community. 
 
As one of Arizona’s leading and oldest student organizations, we are proud to have the 
opportunity to support this effort. Since 1974, the Arizona Students’ Association has advocated 
for all students, and we have worked with our elected officials, on both sides of the aisle, to 
protect the health and security of students. We have mobilized our resources to combat rampant 
sexual assault on campuses, something drink-spiking directly contributes to. We are on the 
frontlines of this issue, meeting directly with students, hearing their concerns, and working 
towards a better future. The truth is that this is a non-partisan issue. The issue of drink spiking 
affects all students and can be life-threatening not only to students but the community as a 
whole.  
 
It is of utmost importance for the Tempe City Council to support and pass this critical legislation 
in order to protect and support the future of our community. Our public universities should be 
places of safety and growth for everyone. Parents, Peers, Educators, and Students more 
resoundingly agree that the detrimental effect drink spiking has on victims is long-lasting. By 
requiring Tempe bars and nightclubs to make drink-spiking test devices available to patrons, we 
are empowering our community and giving them the tools to stay safe and thrive wherever they 
are. We applaud Councilmember Randy Keating for creating a subcommittee focused on 
developing legislation supporting anti–drink spiking measures, including drink covers and 
drink-testing kits. We are proud to join the ASU Graduate Student Government in the effort to 
see this legislation pass. Our Universities are increasingly building their health programs to aid 
students against drink spiking and substance abuse. With the help of local authorities, local 
community members, local government, and advocacy nonprofits, the message is clear: 
students are prioritized, their safety matters, and their success will be guaranteed. If passed, 
this legislation will be the first of its kind in Arizona and will encourage similar efforts at other 
Universities and their cities. Restricting and policing the alcohol students consume does nothing 
to address the actual problems or limit the abuse.By offering harm reduction and visible options 
to empower students, we send a clear message that there are ways to fight back.

The Arizona Students’ Association offers its full support to the Tempe City Council. We offer our 
resources, leaders, and skills in an effort to see this legislation pass. Together, we can continue 
to make Arizona a safer place for all.

Public Survey: Drink Spiking Demographic Breakdown 
Sample Overview 
Per a request from the Tempe Chamber of Commerce, the public survey was extended beyond its typical two-
week window, closing on December 17 instead of December 14, and an additional question was added to identify 
bar ownership. The breakdown below compares overall results, responses submitted before the extension, and 
responses submitted after the extension. For the extension analysis, responses are split using a timestamp cutoff 
of before December 12, 2025 and on or after December 12, 2025. 
Respondent counts and gender 
Category 
Percent 
Count 
Total respondents 
 
292 
Female 
62.0% 
181 
Male 
32.2% 
94 
I prefer not to answer 
3.4% 
10 
Non-conforming 
1.7% 
5 
No response 
0.7% 
2 
Before Extension 
Category 
Percent 
Count 
Total respondents 
 
135 
Female 
67.4% 
91 
Male 
26.7% 
36 
I prefer not to answer 
3.0% 
4 
Non-conforming 
3.0% 
4 
No response 
0.0% 
0 
After Extension 
Category 
Percent 
Count 
Total respondents 
 
157 
Female 
57.3% 
90 
Male 
36.9% 
58 
I prefer not to answer 
3.8% 
6 
Non-conforming 
0.6% 
1 
No response 
1.3% 
2 
Ordinance support (overall) 
Response 
Percent 
Count 
Yes 
59.2% 
173 
No 
34.2% 
100 
Not sure 
6.5% 
19 
Before Extension 
Response 
Percent 
Count 
Yes 
68.1% 
92 
No 
25.9% 
35

Not sure 
5.9% 
8 
After Extension 
Response 
Percent 
Count 
Yes 
51.6% 
81 
No 
41.4% 
65 
Not sure 
7.0% 
11 
Likelihood to visit Tempe bar/nightclub with protections (overall) 
Response 
Percent 
Count 
Yes 
53.4% 
156 
No 
39.0% 
114 
Not sure 
7.2% 
21 
No response 
0.3% 
1 
Before Extension 
Response 
Percent 
Count 
Yes 
61.5% 
83 
No 
31.9% 
43 
Not sure 
6.7% 
9 
No response 
0.0% 
0 
After Extension 
Response 
Percent 
Count 
Yes 
46.5% 
73 
No 
45.2% 
71 
Not sure 
7.6% 
12 
No response 
0.6% 
1 
Ordinance Support by Demographics 
Note: In breakdown tables below, 'Not sure' responses are not shown; percentages are out of the full subgroup n 
(so Yes + No may be less than 100%). 
Support by gender 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
Female 
181 
63.0% (114) 
30.9% (56) 
Male 
94 
57.4% (54) 
37.2% (35) 
Before Extension 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
Female 
91 
74.7% (68) 
18.7% (17) 
Male 
36 
55.6% (20) 
41.7% (15) 
After Extension 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
Female 
90 
51.1% (46) 
43.3% (39) 
Male 
58 
58.6% (34) 
34.5% (20)

Support by age group 
Age group 
n 
Yes 
No 
18–24 
70 
42.9% (30) 
47.1% (33) 
25–34 
81 
72.8% (59) 
25.9% (21) 
35–44 
53 
71.7% (38) 
24.5% (13) 
45–54 
40 
50.0% (20) 
45.0% (18) 
55–64 
20 
55.0% (11) 
40.0% (8) 
65–74 
12 
66.7% (8) 
16.7% (2) 
75+ 
7 
71.4% (5) 
14.3% (1) 
Before Extension 
Age group 
n 
Yes 
No 
18–24 
23 
69.6% (16) 
17.4% (4) 
25–34 
35 
85.7% (30) 
14.3% (5) 
35–44 
25 
80.0% (20) 
20.0% (5) 
45–54 
26 
46.2% (12) 
50.0% (13) 
55–64 
14 
57.1% (8) 
35.7% (5) 
65–74 
3 
66.7% (2) 
0.0% (0) 
75+ 
5 
60.0% (3) 
20.0% (1) 
After Extension 
Age group 
n 
Yes 
No 
18–24 
47 
29.8% (14) 
61.7% (29) 
25–34 
46 
63.0% (29) 
34.8% (16) 
35–44 
28 
64.3% (18) 
28.6% (8) 
45–54 
14 
57.1% (8) 
35.7% (5) 
55–64 
6 
50.0% (3) 
50.0% (3) 
65–74 
9 
66.7% (6) 
22.2% (2) 
75+ 
2 
100.0% (2) 
0.0% (0) 
Support by combined age group and gender 
Age group 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
18–24 
Women 
54 
38.9% (21) 
53.7% (29) 
18–24 
Men 
13 
61.5% (8) 
15.4% (2) 
25–44 
Women 
81 
72.8% (59) 
24.7% (20) 
25–44 
Men 
47 
74.5% (35) 
23.4% (11) 
45–64 
Women 
31 
77.4% (24) 
16.1% (5) 
45–64 
Men 
26 
23.1% (6) 
73.1% (19) 
65+ 
Women 
12 
66.7% (8) 
8.3% (1) 
65+ 
Men 
7 
71.4% (5) 
28.6% (2) 
Before Extension 
Age group 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
18–24 
Women 
20 
70.0% (14) 
20.0% (4) 
18–24 
Men 
2 
50.0% (1) 
0.0% (0) 
25–44 
Women 
41 
80.5% (33) 
19.5% (8) 
25–44 
Men 
16 
93.8% (15) 
6.2% (1) 
45–64 
Women 
22 
72.7% (16) 
18.2% (4) 
45–64 
Men 
16 
18.8% (3) 
81.2% (13)

65+ 
Women 
7 
57.1% (4) 
14.3% (1) 
65+ 
Men 
1 
100.0% (1) 
0.0% (0) 
After Extension 
Age group 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
18–24 
Women 
34 
20.6% (7) 
73.5% (25) 
18–24 
Men 
11 
63.6% (7) 
18.2% (2) 
25–44 
Women 
40 
65.0% (26) 
30.0% (12) 
25–44 
Men 
31 
64.5% (20) 
32.3% (10) 
45–64 
Women 
9 
88.9% (8) 
11.1% (1) 
45–64 
Men 
10 
30.0% (3) 
60.0% (6) 
65+ 
Women 
5 
80.0% (4) 
0.0% (0) 
65+ 
Men 
6 
66.7% (4) 
33.3% (2) 
Survey update (ownership question response completeness) 
Period 
Total responses 
Answered ownership 
question 
Answered (%) 
Before Extension 
135 
6 
4.4% 
After Extension 
157 
156 
99.4% 
Drink Spiking Experience 
Personal experience with suspected drink spiking 
Response 
Percent 
Count 
Yes 
24.3% 
71 
No 
75.0% 
219 
No response 
0.7% 
2 
Before Extension 
Response 
Percent 
Count 
Yes 
31.9% 
43 
No 
68.1% 
92 
No response 
0.0% 
0 
After Extension 
Response 
Percent 
Count 
Yes 
17.8% 
28 
No 
80.9% 
127 
No response 
1.3% 
2 
Personal experience by gender 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
Female 
181 
29.3% (53) 
69.6% (126) 
Male 
94 
14.9% (14) 
85.1% (80) 
Before Extension 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
Female 
91 
37.4% (34) 
62.6% (57)

Male 
36 
16.7% (6) 
83.3% (30) 
After Extension 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
Female 
90 
21.1% (19) 
76.7% (69) 
Male 
58 
13.8% (8) 
86.2% (50) 
Experienced drink spiking (Yes) and ordinance support 
Group 
n 
Support Yes 
Support No 
Not sure 
All (experienced 
yes) 
71 
77.5% (55) 
16.9% (12) 
5.6% (4) 
Female 
53 
84.9% (45) 
13.2% (7) 
1.9% (1) 
Male 
14 
57.1% (8) 
28.6% (4) 
14.3% (2) 
Other/unspecified 
4 
50.0% (2) 
25.0% (1) 
25.0% (1) 
Before Extension 
Group 
n 
Support Yes 
Support No 
Not sure 
All (experienced 
yes) 
43 
83.7% (36) 
14.0% (6) 
2.3% (1) 
Female 
34 
88.2% (30) 
8.8% (3) 
2.9% (1) 
Male 
6 
66.7% (4) 
33.3% (2) 
0.0% (0) 
Other/unspecified 
3 
66.7% (2) 
33.3% (1) 
0.0% (0) 
After Extension 
Group 
n 
Support Yes 
Support No 
Not sure 
All (experienced 
yes) 
28 
67.9% (19) 
21.4% (6) 
10.7% (3) 
Female 
19 
78.9% (15) 
21.1% (4) 
0.0% (0) 
Male 
8 
50.0% (4) 
25.0% (2) 
25.0% (2) 
Other/unspecified 
1 
0.0% (0) 
0.0% (0) 
100.0% (1) 
Likelihood to Visit with Protections 
Note: In breakdown tables below, 'Not sure' responses are not shown; percentages are out of the full subgroup n 
(so Yes + No may be less than 100%). 
By age group 
Age group 
n 
Yes 
No 
18–24 
70 
50.0% (35) 
50.0% (35) 
25–34 
81 
64.2% (52) 
27.2% (22) 
35–44 
53 
60.4% (32) 
30.2% (16) 
45–54 
40 
37.5% (15) 
50.0% (20) 
55–64 
20 
45.0% (9) 
50.0% (10) 
65–74 
12 
58.3% (7) 
25.0% (3) 
75+ 
7 
71.4% (5) 
28.6% (2) 
Before Extension 
Age group 
n 
Yes 
No 
18–24 
23 
78.3% (18) 
21.7% (5)

25–34 
35 
71.4% (25) 
17.1% (6) 
35–44 
25 
68.0% (17) 
24.0% (6) 
45–54 
26 
38.5% (10) 
50.0% (13) 
55–64 
14 
50.0% (7) 
50.0% (7) 
65–74 
3 
66.7% (2) 
33.3% (1) 
75+ 
5 
60.0% (3) 
40.0% (2) 
After Extension 
Age group 
n 
Yes 
No 
18–24 
47 
36.2% (17) 
63.8% (30) 
25–34 
46 
58.7% (27) 
34.8% (16) 
35–44 
28 
53.6% (15) 
35.7% (10) 
45–54 
14 
35.7% (5) 
50.0% (7) 
55–64 
6 
33.3% (2) 
50.0% (3) 
65–74 
9 
55.6% (5) 
22.2% (2) 
75+ 
2 
100.0% (2) 
0.0% (0) 
By age group and gender 
Age group 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
18–24 
Female 
54 
44.4% (24) 
55.6% (30) 
18–24 
Male 
13 
76.9% (10) 
23.1% (3) 
18–24 
Other/unspecified 
3 
33.3% (1) 
66.7% (2) 
25–34 
Female 
52 
65.4% (34) 
23.1% (12) 
25–34 
Male 
25 
68.0% (17) 
28.0% (7) 
25–34 
Other/unspecified 
4 
25.0% (1) 
75.0% (3) 
35–44 
Female 
29 
51.7% (15) 
31.0% (9) 
35–44 
Male 
22 
68.2% (15) 
31.8% (7) 
35–44 
Other/unspecified 
2 
100.0% (2) 
0.0% (0) 
45–54 
Female 
21 
61.9% (13) 
19.0% (4) 
45–54 
Male 
17 
5.9% (1) 
88.2% (15) 
45–54 
Other/unspecified 
2 
50.0% (1) 
50.0% (1) 
55–64 
Female 
10 
80.0% (8) 
20.0% (2) 
55–64 
Male 
9 
11.1% (1) 
77.8% (7) 
55–64 
Other/unspecified 
1 
0.0% (0) 
100.0% (1) 
65–74 
Female 
8 
62.5% (5) 
12.5% (1) 
65–74 
Male 
4 
50.0% (2) 
50.0% (2) 
75+ 
Female 
4 
75.0% (3) 
25.0% (1) 
75+ 
Male 
3 
66.7% (2) 
33.3% (1) 
Before Extension 
Age group 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
18–24 
Female 
20 
75.0% (15) 
25.0% (5) 
18–24 
Male 
2 
100.0% (2) 
0.0% (0) 
18–24 
Other/unspecified 
1 
100.0% (1) 
0.0% (0) 
25–34 
Female 
25 
68.0% (17) 
16.0% (4) 
25–34 
Male 
8 
87.5% (7) 
12.5% (1) 
25–34 
Other/unspecified 
2 
50.0% (1) 
50.0% (1) 
35–44 
Female 
16 
56.2% (9) 
31.2% (5) 
35–44 
Male 
8 
87.5% (7) 
12.5% (1)

35–44 
Other/unspecified 
1 
100.0% (1) 
0.0% (0) 
45–54 
Female 
14 
64.3% (9) 
21.4% (3) 
45–54 
Male 
10 
0.0% (0) 
90.0% (9) 
45–54 
Other/unspecified 
2 
50.0% (1) 
50.0% (1) 
55–64 
Female 
8 
75.0% (6) 
25.0% (2) 
55–64 
Male 
6 
16.7% (1) 
83.3% (5) 
65–74 
Female 
3 
66.7% (2) 
33.3% (1) 
75+ 
Female 
4 
75.0% (3) 
25.0% (1) 
75+ 
Male 
1 
0.0% (0) 
100.0% (1) 
After Extension 
Age group 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
18–24 
Female 
34 
26.5% (9) 
73.5% (25) 
18–24 
Male 
11 
72.7% (8) 
27.3% (3) 
18–24 
Other/unspecified 
2 
0.0% (0) 
100.0% (2) 
25–34 
Female 
27 
63.0% (17) 
29.6% (8) 
25–34 
Male 
17 
58.8% (10) 
35.3% (6) 
25–34 
Other/unspecified 
2 
0.0% (0) 
100.0% (2) 
35–44 
Female 
13 
46.2% (6) 
30.8% (4) 
35–44 
Male 
14 
57.1% (8) 
42.9% (6) 
35–44 
Other/unspecified 
1 
100.0% (1) 
0.0% (0) 
45–54 
Female 
7 
57.1% (4) 
14.3% (1) 
45–54 
Male 
7 
14.3% (1) 
85.7% (6) 
55–64 
Female 
2 
100.0% (2) 
0.0% (0) 
55–64 
Male 
3 
0.0% (0) 
66.7% (2) 
55–64 
Other/unspecified 
1 
0.0% (0) 
100.0% (1) 
65–74 
Female 
5 
60.0% (3) 
0.0% (0) 
65–74 
Male 
4 
50.0% (2) 
50.0% (2) 
75+ 
Male 
2 
100.0% (2) 
0.0% (0) 
Ordinance Support by 'What Best Describes You' 
Note: Multi-select question; respondents may appear in more than one subgroup. 'Not sure' responses are not 
shown below; percentages are out of the full subgroup n. 
Support by subgroup 
Subgroup 
n 
Yes 
No 
Live in Tempe 
176 
55.7% (98) 
38.1% (67) 
Work in Tempe 
118 
64.4% (76) 
33.1% (39) 
Regularly visit Tempe 
bars/nightclubs 
124 
69.4% (86) 
25.8% (32) 
Go to school in Tempe 
44 
63.6% (28) 
29.5% (13) 
Before Extension 
Subgroup 
n 
Yes 
No 
Live in Tempe 
68 
69.1% (47) 
23.5% (16) 
Work in Tempe 
50 
74.0% (37) 
26.0% (13)

Regularly visit Tempe 
bars/nightclubs 
64 
67.2% (43) 
31.2% (20) 
Go to school in Tempe 
16 
75.0% (12) 
6.2% (1) 
After Extension 
Subgroup 
n 
Yes 
No 
Live in Tempe 
108 
47.2% (51) 
47.2% (51) 
Work in Tempe 
68 
57.4% (39) 
38.2% (26) 
Regularly visit Tempe 
bars/nightclubs 
60 
71.7% (43) 
20.0% (12) 
Go to school in Tempe 
28 
57.1% (16) 
42.9% (12) 
Gender breakdown within each subgroup 
Subgroup 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
Live in Tempe 
Female 
116 
56.9% (66) 
37.1% (43) 
Live in Tempe 
Male 
51 
60.8% (31) 
35.3% (18) 
Work in Tempe 
Female 
65 
76.9% (50) 
21.5% (14) 
Work in Tempe 
Male 
45 
51.1% (23) 
46.7% (21) 
Regularly visit 
Tempe 
bars/nightclubs 
Female 
67 
79.1% (53) 
16.4% (11) 
Regularly visit 
Tempe 
bars/nightclubs 
Male 
50 
62.0% (31) 
34.0% (17) 
Go to school in 
Tempe 
Female 
27 
59.3% (16) 
33.3% (9) 
Go to school in 
Tempe 
Male 
13 
76.9% (10) 
15.4% (2) 
Before Extension 
Subgroup 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
Live in Tempe 
Female 
54 
72.2% (39) 
20.4% (11) 
Live in Tempe 
Male 
11 
63.6% (7) 
36.4% (4) 
Work in Tempe 
Female 
35 
88.6% (31) 
11.4% (4) 
Work in Tempe 
Male 
11 
27.3% (3) 
72.7% (8) 
Regularly visit 
Tempe 
bars/nightclubs 
Female 
37 
81.1% (30) 
16.2% (6) 
Regularly visit 
Tempe 
bars/nightclubs 
Male 
23 
52.2% (12) 
47.8% (11) 
Go to school in 
Tempe 
Female 
13 
76.9% (10) 
7.7% (1) 
Go to school in 
Tempe 
Male 
1 
0.0% (0) 
0.0% (0) 
After Extension 
Subgroup 
Gender 
n 
Yes 
No 
Live in Tempe 
Female 
62 
43.5% (27) 
51.6% (32) 
Live in Tempe 
Male 
40 
60.0% (24) 
35.0% (14)

Work in Tempe 
Female 
30 
63.3% (19) 
33.3% (10) 
Work in Tempe 
Male 
34 
58.8% (20) 
38.2% (13) 
Regularly visit 
Tempe 
bars/nightclubs 
Female 
30 
76.7% (23) 
16.7% (5) 
Regularly visit 
Tempe 
bars/nightclubs 
Male 
27 
70.4% (19) 
22.2% (6) 
Go to school in 
Tempe 
Female 
14 
42.9% (6) 
57.1% (8) 
Go to school in 
Tempe 
Male 
12 
83.3% (10) 
16.7% (2)

ASU Student
Survey on
Nighttime Safety
KnoMore surveyed over 180 students
at Arizona State University in October
2025 about their sentiment of
nighttime safety within nightlife.
1 in 5 student respondents reported
Downtown Tempe’s bars/clubs as
‘somewhat unsafe’ or ‘very unsafe’.
www.KnoMore.org
Women
60%
Men
35%
Non-Binary
5%
Respondents Breakdown
Been Spiked or Suspected
Know Someone Spiked
60% Women
14-17% of Women
35% Men
6-8% of Men
5% Non-Binary
15-20% of Non-Binary
Women
Men
Non-Binary
0
5
10
15
20
Women
Men
Non-Binary
0
20
40
60
80
60% of Women
45% of Men
70% of Non-Binary
79% of students perceived drink spiking as “common” in nightlife settings.
54% of students reported having been drugged or knowing someone who had been.
70% of responses indicating a location pointed to Downtown Tempe / Mill Avenue as
the site of drink spiking.
“My friend blacked out after two beers at Tav on
Mill and woke up in the Voodoo Doughnut
parking lot.” 
“It happened at Casa on Mill- twice. We
never told anyone, just made sure she was
safe.”
“At Fat Tuesday on Mill- one moment
everything was normal, and the next,
everything was blurry.”
“I don't go out anymore.  I just don't feel
safe.”
“You start to feel like [drink spiking] 
is just a part of going out, and that’s not
okay.”
“My friend said she told the bartender, and they
just shrugged.”

www.KnoMore.org
Why is drink spiking so
hard to detect?
Most substances used in drink spiking are
odorless, tasteless, and visually
undetectable.
How can you detect drink
spiking?
Rapid drink-testing technologies are  resources
to identify drug presence, and do not preclude
later testing.
WAYS TO TAKE ACTION:
Mandate Visible Safety Signage: Require licensed venues to display
signage that promotes safe drinking practices.
Equip and Educate Licensed Establishments: Enforce requirements for
venues to provide drink testing kits, protective drink covers, and staff
training on recognizing and responding to drink spiking. 
Expand Public Awareness Campaigns: Launch awareness efforts across
college campuses and city centers.
Ensure Rapid and Accurate Medical Testing: Require hospitals and urgent
care centers to maintain access to comprehensive toxicology testing that
screens for the most common spiking substances, ensuring timely
detection, proper medical care, and reliable evidence for law
enforcement investigations.
Meet the 
Executive Director
Danya Sherman is the Executive
Director of KnoMore, working to
advocate against drink spiking and drug
facilitated sexual assault and crime.
KnoMore is a U.S.-based nonprofit
focused on combating drink-spiking,
raising awareness, and providing
resources for prevention and response.
She holds an MBA from Georgetown
University in STEM-Designated
Management Sciences, is a Forbes 30
Under 30, and Toyota’s Mother of
Invention.
Contact us to discuss opportunities 
to contribute to your community.
danya@knomore.org
www.knomore.org
1st & 2nd
51.4%
3rd
28.6%
4th+
20%
Say Drink Spiking is Common
or Extremely Common
Know Someone Spiked
51.4% 1  or 2  Years
st
nd
80% 1  or 2  Years
st
nd
28.6% 3  Years
rd
65% 3  Years
rd
20% 4 + Years
th
55% 4 + Years
th
1st or 2nd
3rd
4th+
0
20
40
60
80
1st or 2nd
3rd
4th+
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Been Spiked or Suspected
65% 1  or 2  Years
st
nd
55% 3  Years
rd
40% 4 + Years
th