Why Sniffer Dogs Should Be Banned
With the growing drug culture in Australian music festivals, police presence is at an all time high. Serious questions are being raised about the state’s sniffer dogs and whether or not their bark is worst than their bite, coming under hellfire from critics questioning their effectiveness. This increasingly common, forceful tactic of the use of sniffer dogs at festivals is actually causing more harm than good, intimidating and frightening people into ingesting their whole supply of drugs, resulting in high amounts of hospitalisations, and in some cases, death. This was the brutal reality for 23-year-old Melbourne man, James Munro. James died at Sydney’s Defqon 1, after consuming three ecstasy pills. While in queue for the festival, James became
…show more content…
Police say they’ll do anything in their power to protect the people, yet with over 80% of humiliating and violating drug searches being on false grounds, is the sniffer dog really the right tool? Contrary to the beliefs of the police, the facts are that with the increasing data on the ineffectiveness of sniffer dogs, their efficiency in curbing drug use is significantly decreasing. Sniffer dogs were initially introduced to restrain the dealing of drugs, yet dealers are rarely – if ever- caught, very few people are deterred, and the risks of harm are notably increased. In one case, a 28-year-old male was found to have 2 ecstasy pills in his pocket. After handing over the pills to an officer, the officer replied to him “You’ll be able to get some more inside the venue”. If this is the police’s attitude to the issue, why have them policing the entrance at all? If drugs were getting past the dogs and the guards at the entrance, wouldn’t it be more effective if the police were patrolling inside the venue as well, if not instead? A police presence, which focuses on stopping truly anti-social behavior, violence and aggression at festivals, is all that is needed. The duty of police is to protect the people, so if there is no hostility or threatening behavior to patrons themselves or others, police strength isn't needed to be so
Police say they’ll do anything in their power to protect the people, yet with over 80% of humiliating and violating drug searches being on false grounds, is the sniffer dog really the right tool? Contrary to the beliefs of the police, the facts are that with the increasing data on the ineffectiveness of sniffer dogs, their efficiency in curbing drug use is significantly decreasing. Sniffer dogs were initially introduced to restrain the dealing of drugs, yet dealers are rarely – if ever- caught, very few people are deterred, and the risks of harm are notably increased. In one case, a 28-year-old male was found to have 2 ecstasy pills in his pocket. After handing over the pills to an officer, the officer replied to him “You’ll be able to get some more inside the venue”. If this is the police’s attitude to the issue, why have them policing the entrance at all? If drugs were getting past the dogs and the guards at the entrance, wouldn’t it be more effective if the police were patrolling inside the venue as well, if not instead? A police presence, which focuses on stopping truly anti-social behavior, violence and aggression at festivals, is all that is needed. The duty of police is to protect the people, so if there is no hostility or threatening behavior to patrons themselves or others, police strength isn't needed to be so