You are viewing:

  1. » Home
  2. » BTL Blog
  3. » Who let the dogs out?


Jump down to: content, section menu, site menu or site info sections.


Who let the dogs out?

By Aleks Vickovich

Like thousands of Perth’s youngsters, Gemma Thoms set out for the Claremont Showground on 2 February 2009 with a spring in her step and a schedule with her favourite bands highlighted. According to the testimony of her friends, Gemma’s feelings of joy and excitement were replaced by fear as she approached the gates to the Big Day Out.

The sight of sinister looking German Shepherds and their uniformed masters was enough to send Gemma, who was also carrying some ecstasy pills, into a panic. In that moment of terror Gemma swallowed all three pills at once to avoid detection by the sniffer dogs. Unfortunately the large dosage combined with close to 40-degree heat, proved fatal and she died later that day, before the headliners had even taken to the stage.

Gemma’s death has re-opened the drugs debate in Australia. In particular, there has been a lot of conflict over the issue of responsibility: was Gemma completely responsible for her own death or were the police and the laws they enforced to blame?

Western Australia Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan says that accusing the police of Gemma’s death is ‘absurd’. Similarly, WA Premier, Colin Barnett, believes police aren’t to blame considering that drugs are the ‘scourge of modern society’. Now despite these dismissive views, there is clearly a link between Gemma’s death and the policy of using sniffer dogs. If Gemma had not encountered those dogs she would have taken the pills over the course of the day and would probably still be alive.

According to the law that brought in random sniffer dog searches (the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act of 2001) the purpose of the dogs (apart from the obvious one of sniffing out drugs) is to ‘deter drug use’. This means that the idea of getting caught is meant to scare people off drugs. Well Gemma was scared alright, but the fear she felt did not act as a deterrent. Instead, she made a rash decision that cost her her life. It seems to me that it’s the logic behind using sniffer dogs which is ‘absurd’.

Greens MP Sylvia Hale refers to the use of sniffer dogs as ‘PR exercises’ and says Gemma’s death proves that their use is ‘life-threatening’. In a 2006 review of the sniffer dog law, the NSW Ombudsman, an independent ‘watchdog’ (pun intended) of public services, found that sniffer dogs do not ‘assist police in targeting drug suppliers’. The report also did not ‘identify any evidence that the use of drug detection dogs has had a deterrent effect in drug users’. Furthermore, it even warned of people engaging in ‘risky behaviour’ (like swallowing three pills) as a result of the fear caused by the dogs.

These findings highlight the biggest problem with sniffer dogs–they’re aimed at the wrong target. The vast majority of people that get detected by dogs at a music festival are average punters who would have used the drugs recreationally and for personal use only. Now although these people, like Gemma, are breaking the law, busting them will not have any positive impact on solving the so-called ‘scourge of modern society’.

Even Commissioner O’Callaghan has begun to think twice about the effectiveness of dogs and the harm they may cause. The WA police are considering trialling drug bins, where you can dump your drugs before entry to an event without being charged. This proposal is definitely a step in the right direction. This policy would allow people to make a rational decision at the last minute, rather than sending them into a fit of panic.

Premier Barnett says that the ‘flower power’ attitude of the ‘1970s’ is over and that now is the time to get ‘tough’ on drugs. But just because young people these days don’t all have patchwork jeans and long hair doesn’t mean they won’t experiment with drugs. Policy-makers need to focus on keeping young people alive rather than just instilling fear into them.  Sniffer dogs do not keep people safe. In fact, they make doing drugs even more dangerous. We should put the dogs back in the kennel, and let them sniff for bones instead of joints, before this policy takes another life.

NB: The author apologises if the title of this piece put that song in your head. He assures you the same thing happened to him and he is pleased the Baha Men never released another song.

 

Originally published on ActNow.


References

ABC News, ‘sniffer dogs blamed for BDO overdose’. February 3 2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/03/2480573.htm

ABC News.,‘Drug bin trial to go ahead despite opposition’. March 4 2009

Tovey, J. ‘Sniffer dogs 'raise risk' for dance party drug users’. The Sydney Morning Herald, February 4 2009

NSW Ombudsman. Review of the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001. Published September 2006

Lawton, G. ‘Ecstasy’s long-term effects revealed’. New Scientist, February 2009

The Brisbane Times, 'Blog Central'. ‘Did Gemma have to die?’. February 5 2009

The Herald Sun, ‘Ecstasy 'no worse than horse riding'’. February 8 2009

Guest, D. ‘Premier Colin Barnett 'harsh' on drug death girl’. The Australian, February 2 2009.

Jump to top

1 Comment

drug_stud

over 2 years ago

While this report does – importantly – highlight some of the issues and possible risks involved with the use of Passive Alert Detection (PAD) or ‘sniffer’ dogs, I believe that it tends to give a one-sided, possibly inaccurate account of Gemma Thoms’ tragic death.

Firstly, there are conflicting reports regarding whether Gemma actually saw PAD dogs at the event. Gemma’s friends noted that she saw the dogs and subsequently ingested all her drugs, however, police reported that she was dropped off at the event an entrance that wasn’t patrolled by PAD dogs (see: http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,27574,25001800-2761,00.html). Additionally, there are reports that Gemma consumed one of her pills before arriving at the event, not all three at once.

Nevertheless, it is imperative that people are aware of and educated about the potential risks involved with the use of PAD dogs. It is possible that:

        Some people might consume all their drugs upon seeing the dogs;

        Some people might consume drugs (riskier drugs?) they believe aren’t detectable by the dogs;

        Some people purchase drugs from unknown sources at events to avoid being detected by dogs when entering.

A number of studies have verified this.

Maybe such harms can be minimised if people are educated about the relevant laws in their jurisdiction? For example, in Victoria there is the police drug diversion program which follows these steps:

        An individual is found to be in possession of an illicit drug (i.e. less than a traffickable amount);

        They are cautioned by police, i.e. they’re required to attend 2 compulsory counselling sessions, though they don’t have to attend court or get a police record;

        It is a three-strikes-and-you’re-out system, however.

With all this in mind, I don’t see the presence of PAD dogs at public events diminishing anytime soon. Clearly the findings of the aforementioned Ombudsman’s report have been disregarded in this respect, primarily that the use of PAD dogs largely fails to deter drug use and that they aren’t a cost-effective means of combating drug use or trafficking. Maybe the money and resources could be better spent on crowd control, to deter and respond to other issues, e.g. alcohol-fuelled violence?

Edited by moderator over 2 years ago

Email this page

The following message will be sent to your friend:

<Your name> thought you might be interested in this page:
http://www.betweenthelines.net.au/blog/who-let-the-dogs-out

They said:

Personal note
You can add a personal note to the end of your email

Not a member?
Join Between the Lines to access a range of great member features.

Forgot your password?

Browse by tags

  1. acid
  2. addiction
  3. addictive personality
  4. adhd
  5. advertising
  6. AFL
  7. alcohol
  8. amphetemines
  9. amy winhouse
  10. anorexia
  11. anti-drug
  12. anxiety
  13. big day out
  14. binge drinking
  15. bisexual
  16. blood alcohol limit
  17. bongs
  18. boundaries
  19. brett stewart
  20. brittany murphy
  21. caffeine
  22. cannabis
  23. celebrity
  24. censorship
  25. co-morbidity
  26. cocaine
  27. coke
  28. community
  29. crime
  30. crystal Meth
  31. culture
  32. dance party
  33. depression
  34. disclosure
  35. DMT
  36. drink spiking
  37. drinking age
  38. driver testing
  39. driving
  40. drug education
  41. drug testing
  42. drug trends
  43. drugs
  44. ecstasy
  45. effect
  46. effects
  47. energy drinks
  48. environment
  49. ethics
  50. experimentation
  51. fbi
  52. febfast
  53. festivals
  54. friends
  55. future music festival
  56. gateway
  57. gay
  58. GHB
  59. government
  60. hallucinogens
  61. harm minimisation
  62. harm reduction
  63. health
  64. Hep C
  65. hepatitis
  66. heroin
  67. hipsters
  68. ice
  69. income
  70. injecting
  71. international drug laws
  72. internet
  73. interviews
  74. junk food
  75. KAVA
  76. ketamine
  77. know your limits
  78. law
  79. legal highs
  80. legalisation
  81. lesbian
  82. LSD
  83. marijuana
  84. matthew stokes
  85. media
  86. medicinal
  87. mental health
  88. meow
  89. mephedrone
  90. methamphetamine
  91. MGMT
  92. music
  93. music festivals
  94. nature
  95. news
  96. nurture
  97. overdose
  98. parties
  99. peer education
  100. personal
  101. personal stories
  102. pills
  103. police
  104. police search
  105. policy
  106. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
  107. pot
  108. poverty
  109. pre and post loading
  110. psychedelics
  111. punishment
  112. queer
  113. radio
  114. recruit
  115. reformed
  116. regular drug use
  117. rehab
  118. research
  119. rights
  120. risk
  121. ritalin
  122. role model
  123. rugby league
  124. safe partying
  125. schoolies
  126. schools
  127. sharing equipment
  128. sideways
  129. sleep
  130. smart drugs
  131. sms
  132. sniffer dogs
  133. speed
  134. sponsorship
  135. sport
  136. sports
  137. subculture
  138. survey
  139. the streets
  140. therapeutic
  141. transgender
  142. trends
  143. trips
  144. video
  145. war on drugs
  146. wasted
  147. wealth
  148. wellbeing
  149. what is in drugs
  150. zero-tolerance