There's something a few people aren't getting here;
Is the risk of getting ill/ dying
perceived as being more dangerous to ones well-being than getting caught, charged, fined and convicted for drugs? For many people, the latter is the far more scary option. Convicted drug users are marked for life in many cases - even those who receive a non-conviction are often still hindered by it later in life. If you're young, looking at a bright future, career etc, you might feel there is no choice when faced with sniffer dogs. Some people, particularly when in such a panic, undoubtedly weigh up the chances of dying on a few Es - as being remote, against a virtual certainty they'll be busted if they walk past the dogs.
She created this string of events and yes it was unfortunate that the presence of the drug dog's influenced the path to a fatal ending, but to blame the police for her death! Don't buy it!
Drug control should be prevention and detection, with an emphasis on prevention! In this case the police performed the detection role but who performed the prevention role - there's the failure in the process right there!
The bottom line is; without the dogs’ presence, she wouldn't have necked the all the pills at once. Many others would have undoubtedly done the same, thankfully without this tragic outcome. When the use of sniffer dogs at events was first being considered by police, as Silvia Hale remarked, many people predicted this would happen, but the powers that be at that time brushed it off as more anti- prohibitionist scare tactics. Now that it's resulted in a death, one we know of anyway – those in power shift the blame to the drug itself; pathetic - if only drugs could talk, aye
It's also completely naive to think police detection dogs at events can only serve to reduce the harms caused by drugs. Not only is the issue of necking all at the gate very relevant, but also, since the introduction of this and similar measures, the number of interventions we see involving "over the counter" products or novel compounds assumed to be safe from detection etc has increased dramatically. And if it's not quasi legal psychostimulants, it's excessive use of alcohol. I won't even bother mentioning any of the many examples we have on the flow-on effects that terrorizing patrons in this manner has had. Many, after witnessing the dogs, become withdrawn from all authority - including medics, and are frequently too afraid to admit what they took for fear of getting in trouble. Others become so afraid they won't even seek help when they need it.
Soon, all major events in Queensland will only have mid-light beers available on site. Restrictions will also be placed on the number sold, which will also change throughout the event, and bars will close early.
What sort of predictions can we make here? Well, for a start, I'd wager anything we'll see more people drinking heavily before they enter the venue. We'll also no doubt see punters having non-drinking friends buy their drinks for them, thus getting around the 4 drink max, or whatever it's set at for various times of the day. I also believe we'll see renewed popularity of drugs with longer half lives. We already see increases in reported LSD use at one day events. Don't get me wrong, reducing excessive alcohol intoxication is great for most, not least HR teams and medics, but we have to consider what the overall effect will be.
I agree that having police ops with drug dogs alone is not smart - but they have been given their task in society and they are performing it!
I read they are looking for the dealer - what about focusing on her friends - and asking them why on earth would you let a good friend do that!
Blame can be pointed in many directions in this case - but when it comes down to it - she allowed herself to be put in a situation with little consideration on self preservation which unfortunately resulted in fatal consequences!
As I've said, Police do have a role at events, and a part of that role is to reduce the
harms caused by drugs, and one way of doing that is by
reducing amounts of illicit drugs entering an event. However, methods and intended scope of such operations are everything. The fact is, the number of drug dealers at these events is tiny compared to the number of people taking drugs. So, whether it’s the stated intention or not, police invariably detain more users. Clued up drug dealers would have other ways of getting their product onsite anyway.
As for the girl’s friends; how long do you think it takes to swallow a couple of pills? Her friends may have even told her not to do it, but when under pressure from those upfront of the line, who wants to make too much noise about a friend and pills?
It’s also very possible she was not aware of the dangers. It could even be that she, or friends from her crew had taken 3 of these tablets before, without consequence. There are just too many unknowns here to even begin to pass judgement.
War on Drugs in Australia - no, they haven't got it right, nor has any other country in this world!
Glad we agree on that!
Next one of you will post that all drugs should be legalised!
Not legal with no boundaries, but certainly regulated as per pharmaceuticals. With what's coming, that's inevitable IMO as there'll simply be no way for authorities to keep up with newly emerging compounds. Analogue legislation with pharmacologically similar clauses may help prosecute once seizures are made, but it’s a matter of identifying these compounds quickly, and it will be an impossible job under the present system. Paralleling this tend, drug taking will become more dangerous, less predictable and increasingly difficult to treat in cases of overdose. Ultimately, a system such as that in place in NZ will have to be developed, but by which regulation and availability are more aptly defined. But a Tsunami is coming, mark my words.
Mr Blonde: something is seriously wrong with harm minimisation in this country if our youth are choosing to have their first drug experience in this sort of environment and not knowing the risks involved!
Come on all - it was the system that failed her - the dogs didnt kill her!
That's possibly the most sensible thing you've said in this thread. As I've said before and plan to elaborate on further in the future, Harm minimisation (or the harm reduction component) isn't working as well as it used to because of this ridiculous notion among policy makers that telling users how to do it more safely- even with a deterrent slant - is sending the wrong message.
From the perspective of someone who has seen it work effectively, it's been like going back to the dark ages. Fair enough, if this conservative change in the info provided to users had been demonstrated to have resulted in less drug use I would have stepped back and admitted HR, as it previously stood, was fundamentally flawed. But most of the reduction in use today, of the common drugs; meth, MDMA etc, is primarily due to local supply reduction, particularly in regards to methamphetamine. If that was the end of it, great, but it's not. The drugs are changing, the crime bosses are changing, and user tastes are expanding. All of which leaves LE further behind the eight-ball, and HR and medical groups less able to prevent catastrophic outcomes.
I say establish drug education at a very young age. Don't send home scare pamphlets to parents - it makes a great portion of society retreat and become less likely to discuss the issue with their kids. I’ve spoken on this before and will again, but if demand reduction is really the aim, I see it as absolutely essential to address this once and for all, and in a practical and holistic fashion.
And yes, it was the system that failed her, but the dogs were the part that ‘bit her’.
I've been active in HR outreach since early 1999. In those first few years we were able to reach many people in all sorts of environments - even clubs, where, from working in event production, doors were opened for us. We were initially provided good resources - no pussy worded pamphlets, just straight up life saving advice. When these became outdated, and nothing replaced them, we designed our own, often crappy looking A4s, with stuff on hyponatremia, and other sensible info. These too were well received and often sparked further inquiry. Then, as state government initiatives bent to meet the "tougher on drug users" federal policy, the focus on the information we were given changed, and what was previously considered good advice was then viewed as sending the wrong message..
We continued to give truthful, scientifically backed info as asked for. To do otherwise would have seen us shunned by punters as other groups were. But we had to work hard to find new ways by which to stay effective and remain accepted by our target groups while still adhering to operational protocols.
Ultimately, the best harm reduction equates to harm prevention (abstention).
I know I'm mostly preaching to the converted here, but realistically, minimising harms with those who will use regardless, is far more achievable and has been well demonstrated. Within that framework, there is far more room to successfully disseminate deterrent based advice. It works because, without the “Just Say No” blurb it attracts more interest, simple as that.
Going back to when we first started doing HR outreach; we found awareness among the punters on the potential dangers of MDMA (and other drugs) grew steadily for the first years. In those early days, people came to us hungry for info on their drug/s of choice, and certainly less afraid of admitting use. What I'm trying to stress here, is that when HR was politically popular, real progress was made at both preventing and reducing harms.
My wife's motto used to be "think of us as a safety net. We catch em' before they fall..."
These days it's more mopping up - preventing tragedy after the behavior, rather than preventing behaviour which can lead to tragedy. To me and others on the coal face, this seems ridiculous. We had a system that worked. It wasn't the complete answer to demand reduction, more something that could be built upon. But unlike the present system, information was successfully disseminated to a far wider demographic, information which was found to be very effective at reducing the
level of personal use - an achievable objective of any realistic demand reduction mandate.
Success was evident not only by those casualties that later joined the group - and therefore were straight whenever they attended with the group - but also from the numbers that would come into the tent at future events and announce they were straight or intended to limit their drug use at the event. The secret was to discover you could still enjoy an event without being having to be smashed. While we still see it occasionally these days, it's far from what it used to be.
So, interventions involving "take home knowledge" were once a much bigger part of our work. Today, for most surviving drug advice groups, it's required that there be far less focus on reduction and more on prevention, with the term "prevention" meaning to stop use altogether rather than prevent undesirable outcomes after the fact. Aside from its ineffectiveness, to us, that sort of policy doesn't foster the idea of promoting personal management skills; which once formed a big part of any message we gave. That gives people tools by which they can develop a better self image, and as we all know, self image is an important tool for changing bad habits and breaking addiction cycles.
Without doubt, unless we return to accepting that drug use has and will always occur, we are set for more deaths and higher use figures - the drugs will also change, presenting more complex problems for anyone concerned with saving lives, or enforcing the law.
To be successful in demand reduction, we must abandon this ridiculous ideology of eliminating drug use altogether, and focus once again on disseminating practical, effective information. If we don't, we'll continue to see more bad judgement on the part of innocent users, and sadly, more fatal outcomes.
Can I ask at least what scene? Authorities or concerned/connected punters/health experts kinda stuff?
I think it should be evident from comments on the AM report