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.
How do I know this?
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.
