Cops trully suck sometimes!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/03/2704056.htm
Music festival + 4 dogs + 50 coppers = 65 people arrested for pills, 80% users, 1 dealer

"In Australia public outrage against sniffer dogs has resulted in the Parliamentary Ombudsman conducting a review of their use. The Ombudsman conducted a study into the accuracy of the police dogs and found 73 % of the people pointed out by the dogs had no drugs on them.

The same study showed that 60 % of those searched and who had no drugs on them admitted to the police that they had had some contact with cannabis, or had been to a place where it had been smoked. If they search you and find no drugs - don’t make any admissions! In doing so you bolster the credibility of the dogs’ powers, and add information to police files on you."

http://www.schmoo.co.uk/cannabis/snifferdogs.htm

"After questioning in the Parliament the Greens have ascertained that each dog costs $90,000 to train and who knows how much is spent on ongoing up keep. And then each dog has its own handler and every time there is one of these futile operations 12 or more officers are involved."

http://www.partyvibe.com/forums/law/30890-sniffer-dogs-london-underground-network.html

this is classic directed use of statistics!
not that i really give a shit either way its just hilarious.

if 75% of people had no drugs on them, and 60% of those Admitted that they had had some contact with cannabis in the past however long, suggests as a tool those dogs are pretty fucking effective.
it means that potentially- and this is a non quantifiable part- that the 40% who were stopped and did not admit, simply lied about their past cannabis usage, or were innocent, however it is likely that some would have lied, due to the illegality, but common use of the drug.

Basically its BS.
also i thought some of those dogs are explosive sniffers?

Finally,
why the fuck use the tube?