Drug detection dogs have long been a familiar sight at Australian music festivals, often forming part of the overall security strategy aimed at deterring drug use. While their presence is meant to promote safety, recent findings from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) raise serious questions about their effectiveness and the unintended consequences of their deployment.

The latest research, particularly the 2024 bulletin by NDARC, examines whether drug detection dogs are living up to their intended purpose.

The declining presence of drug detection dogs

According to the Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS), drug dog encounters at music festivals in Australia have seen a significant decline, dropping from 61% of attendees in 2019 to 38% in 2024. This decrease may reflect reduced use of these tactics or changes in event security protocols.

But does their presence effectively discourage drug use? The study suggests otherwise. Among those who did encounter drug detection dogs, 66% admitted to carrying drugs. Alarmingly, fewer than 5 participants reported that police discovered drugs on them, indicating that detection dogs are far from infallible.

Limited interaction with festivalgoers

The majority of festival attendees who encountered detection dogs experienced little to no direct interaction. According to the NDARC study:

• 70% reported no physical engagement with the dogs, such as sniffing.
• Only 23% of attendees were actively sniffed by the dogs.
• More invasive checks, like bag inspections (5%) and pat-downs (4%), were rare.

These statistics challenge the perception that detection dogs impose a stringent barrier to drug entry. For many, their presence is largely symbolic, with minimal direct security interventions taking place.

Risky precautionary behaviours driven by drug detection dogs

While the intention behind deploying detection dogs is to deter drug use, the NDARC report reveals a concerning trend of risky adaptive behaviours among festival attendees. Instead of discouraging drug use, many individuals are adjusting their practices to avoid detection. For example:

• 72% concealed their drugs more thoroughly.
• 23% opted to consume drugs before entering the venue, a practice often referred to as “preloading” that carries its own health risks.
• 20% transferred possession of drugs to friends, potentially exposing others to legal consequences.
• 16% purchased drugs within the festival grounds, potentially from unreliable or unsafe sources.

These findings highlight that the presence of detection dogs may not only fail to deter drug use but also contribute to unsafe behaviours in response to their perceived threat.

Drug detection dogs and Australian policy

With a significant proportion of attendees anticipating the presence of drug detection dogs (87%) and taking steps to avoid detection (82%), the report makes one thing clear: they are not effective as a deterrent.

The NDARC research underscores the need for policymakers to rethink the use of detection dogs at music festivals. Despite their high visibility and intended purpose, their impact appears limited in reducing drug use and promoting festival safety.

This latest report from NDARC forces us to ask a difficult yet necessary question—is it time to reconsider our approach? While the aim to prevent drug use and improve public safety remains paramount, the evidence suggests that the current strategy falls short.

Ultimately, research like this plays a vital role in not only highlighting issues but also paving the path for more effective policies that benefit the broader community.

Source: UNSW