Search

• Despite extant research focusing on music festivals as a site of encounters with police drug detection dogs, people who use drugs report encounters in a range of other settings. • People who regularly use MDMA/ecstasy are significantly more likely than those who regularly inject drugs to report an encounter with drug dogs. • Despite this, people who regularly inject drugs are significantly more likely to report an encounter which involves being stopped and/or searched, or which results in criminal justice consequences including receiving a fine, being arrested, or having their drugs confiscated. • We recommend that the use of drug dogs be removed from all community settings, including music festivals, public transportation hubs and other public spaces. Drug detection dogs are utilised across multiple settings, however existing literature focuses predominantly on festival-based encounters. We compare drug dog encounters in non-festival settings among two samples of people who regularly use drugs, and investigate factors associated with witness only versus stop and/or search encounters. Australians who regularly (i.e., ≥monthly) use ecstasy and/or other illegal stimulants (n = 777; Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS)) or inject illegal drugs (n = 862; Illicit Drugs Reporting System (IDRS)) were surveyed between April-June, 2019. Univariable regression analyses were used to test for differences in drug dog encounters between samples, and to identify factors associated with a more intensive drug dog encounter (namely those that involved a stop and/or search). People who inject drugs were less likely to witness drug dogs than those who regularly use ecstasy and/or other illegal stimulants (odds ratio (OR) 0.46; 95 % CI 0.30–0.69). They were significantly more likely than EDRS participants to report being stopped and searched (3.29; 1.68–6.44) however. Among those carrying drugs at their last stop and/or search encounter, the majority of both samples reported that their drugs were not detected by police. IDRS participants aged 35–49 were more likely to report a stop and/or search encounter than those aged 17–34; no significant associations were found among the EDRS sample. Despite participants who use ecstasy and/other stimulants being more likely than those who regularly inject drugs to report encountering drug dogs in non-festival settings, participants who inject drugs were more likely to report an intensive or invasive drug dog encounter and/or receiving a formal criminal justice consequence. This study reinforces questions about the efficacy and appropriateness of drug dog operations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2013 the Queensland Government introduced criminal association and mandatory sentencing laws for members of outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMCGs). Forms of "criminal association" or "anti-bikie" laws have been introduced in several Australian jurisdictions, and recent High Court decisions upholding their constitutionality will ensure that they remain part of our justice landscape. Generally, the aims of these laws are to declare a specific organisation as "criminal" and impose various legal orders and offences that thwart the consorting of members and address organised crime, such as unexplained wealth regimes. There have been significant criticisms of these styles of association laws both here and internationally. The aim of this research is to show the extent of involvement of OMCGs in the drug trade and associated organised crime activity, and whether anti-association laws are an effective response to this type of organised criminal activity.Methods: This paper relied on six years of data outlining the criminal activity of OMCGs from the Queensland Police Service (QPS) obtained under the legislative framework of The Queensland Right to Information Act (RTI) 2009. Information obtained from the Queensland Commission into Organised Crime (2015) and Queensland Taskforce into organised crime legislation (2015) was also used.Results: The data suggest that the role of OMCGs in the drug market has been overstated and is not as dominant as has been portrayed by government agencies and the popular media. Generally, OMCGs account for less than one percent of organised crime type activity. This is also true for drug type offences where OMCGs are responsible for less than one percent of offences. The findings show that the Queensland example has highlighted the ineffectiveness of the criminal association laws and the mandatory sentencing provisions in that they have had little impact on drug market activity and little success in the courts.Conclusion: The analysis presented here is twofold: an examination of the legal ramifications and an evaluation of the investigative utility of such laws from a policy evaluation standpoint. In both cases, there is little evidence to suggest that these laws are an effective or appropriate response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the number of new 'psychoactive substances' detected globally has risen exponentially, the policy response of assessing and prohibiting each new substance individually has become increasingly unworkable. In an attempt to disrupt the availability of new as-yet-unscheduled substances, Ireland (2010), Poland (2011), Romania (2012), New Zealand (2013), Australia (2015) and the United Kingdom (2016) have enacted generic or blanket ban legislation that prohibits all 'psychoactive substances' that are not already regulated or belong to exempt categories. How such generic legislation defines 'psychoactive substance' is therefore crucial. While there is a growing critical literature relating to blanket bans of 'psychoactive substances', the Australian legislation is yet to be described or critically analysed. In this commentary, we aim to draw the attention of local and international drug policy scholars to Australia's newest legislative approach to 'psychoactive substances'. Using the Australian experience as a case study, we first describe and trace the origins of this generic banning approach, especially focusing on how 'psychoactive effect' came to be defined. Then, we critically examine the assumptions underpinning this definition and the possibilities silenced by it, drawing on the work of poststructuralist and critical scholars. In doing so, we explore and raise a series of questions about how this legislation works to stabilise drugs, drug harms and drug effects, as well as addiction realities; how the category of 'psychoactive substances' is produced through this legislation; and some of the material-discursive effects which accompany this rendering of the 'problem'. We offer this commentary not as a comprehensive discussion of each of these elements but rather as a starting-point to promote further discussion and debate within the drug policy field. To this end, we conclude with a suggested research agenda that may help guide such future work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International drug law enforcement agencies have identified an apparent rise in high level drug traffickers choosing to deal in multiple different drugs. It is hypothesised that this may be a "deliberate modus operandi" and that the formation of "portfolios of trades" may make such traffickers more profitable, harmful and resilient to changes in drug supply and policing. In this paper we provide the first exploration of the extent, nature and harms of poly-drug trafficking at Australian borders.Methods: Two different methods were used. First, we used Australian Federal Police (AFP) data on all commercial level seizures at the Australian border from 1999 to 2012 to identify the proportion of seizures that were poly-drug and trends over time. Second, we used unit-record data on a sub-set of 20 drug trafficking cases and linked-cases (defined as the original drug trafficking case and all other criminal cases that were connected via common offenders and/or suspects) to compare the profiles of poly-drug and mono-drug traffickers, including: the total weight and type of drug seized, the value of assets seized, and the level of involvement in other crime (such as money laundering and corruption).Results: Between 5% and 35% of commercial importations at the Australian border involved poly-drug trafficking. Poly-drug trafficking occurred in almost every year of analysis (1999-2012), but it increased only slightly over time. Compared to mono-drug traffickers poly-drug traffickers were characterised by: larger quantities of drugs seized, larger networks, longer criminal histories and more involvement in other types of serious crime.Conclusion: Some fears about poly-drug traffickers may have been overstated particularly about the inherent escalation of this form of trafficking. Nevertheless, this suggests poly-drug traffickers are likely to pose added risks to governments and law enforcement than mono-drug traffickers. They may necessitate different types of policy responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]