• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Effectiveness Of Police Dogs In Sniffing Drugs

They are effective in a number of capacities... catching bad guys... sniffing out ones that are hiding or got away... sniffing drugs... protecting humans....
retired to a stud farm...
 
They are effective in a number of capacities... catching bad guys... sniffing out ones that are hiding or got away... sniffing drugs... protecting humans....

A bad guy can cross water and that will stop any dogs from sniffing them out. As I've said throughout this entire thread dogs are very ineffective in sniffing out drugs with the accuracy of about that of a coin toss. And a dog can indicate drugs when a person has no drugs or the police can say the dog indicated that. So that's why using dogs to sniff out drugs is a particularly bad idea and why it isn't fair for police to use dogs for that. As for protection, police have weapons for protection, they don't need dogs.
 
You'd get a better success rate searching people at random than relying on dogs.
Inspector Chris Condon of the NSW Police dog unit says detection dogs are extremely accurate.

He says more than 80 per cent of indications by the dogs "result in either drugs being located or the person admitting recent contact with illegal drugs" and that "any suggestion otherwise is incorrect".
My emphasis.
 
A bad guy can cross water and that will stop any dogs from sniffing them out. As I've said throughout this entire thread dogs are very ineffective in sniffing out drugs with the accuracy of about that of a coin toss. And a dog can indicate drugs when a person has no drugs or the police can say the dog indicated that. So that's why using dogs to sniff out drugs is a particularly bad idea and why it isn't fair for police to use dogs for that. As for protection, police have weapons for protection, they don't need dogs.

Corrupt cops does not alter the effectiveness of what dogs can do. They are better at detecting humans and drugs than the machines are. And crossing water? The vast majority of times dogs are used are in urban areas. In rural areas it takes longer but dogs do what humans cant often finding what IR helicopters cant in a fraction of the time. Your logic is simply wrong.
 
The actual statistics say otherwise.
My point was that the statistics appear to have been misrepresented to create the falsely negative impression. The quote suggests that a significant number of the people the dogs indicated weren't carrying illegal drugs but admitted to recently handling them. That would still be a correct indication by the dog but the headline figure is wrongly treating those examples as failures.
 
Back
Top Bottom