Paul,

All that you now post is probably true but you denied that Shoebridge was advising where the sniffer dogs are likely to be, yet on the Greens web site there are the links to Sniff Off which you denied existed.
OTB was right.

No, no, no. Is Mise, I never denied the existence of a Facebook page called 'Sniff Off' or David Shoebridge's involvement. The original post from a foreign blog site I considered not creditable evidence. I am not going to make the case for the prosecution, with a biased story from a conservative right web site, I'll leave that to you blokes.

http://davidshoebridge.org.au/sniffoff/

Sniffer dogs are a valuable tool in the detection of drugs, but they must be used properly, target dealers/suppliers, not a bunch of disadvantaged schoolies and others around Newtown and Redfern. Fact, you are 100 times more likely to find a sniffer dog on Redfern Station than you are on Chatswood (leafy north shore) Station, Why? Sure the coppers have to be proactive in the fight against drugs, but don't just aim at the "soft" targets, like kids on train stations, go after the Mr Big. I would much prefer to see one drug dealer behind bars, even if it means 100 users go free.

Give me your opinion on this please. My partner "T" was stopped and questioned by two young constables on Friday night outside a pub in Redfern about 10pm while waiting for the bus home. They wanted to know what she was "doing". She had not been to the pub, in fact she had been to a meeting and was waiting for the bus. Given her dark skin, (been swimming a lot lately) and Maori features she could pass for aboriginal. Would a white middle class woman waiting for a bus, say in Mosman at 10pm on a Friday night be asked by two constables "what are you doing?"
p/s They didn't have a sniffer dog with them. LOL. In the end there was noting to it, as "T" is a very friendly person and is inclined to say hello first, even to coppers. I said consider they may have been only concerned for your welfare at that time, next time catch a cab home, don't wait for the bus. "I'm safe there! the bros wont hurt me!" so she says.

Paul1405, "The big question for you is how much are the sniffer dogs costing society, both financially and socially and for what result"

The hit rate is far higher than Random Breath Testing (RBT). However the Human Headline, NSW 'Watermelon' Greens Shoebridge, is not saying anything about that.

Talking about RBT, it is understood that the bigger problem now is the illicit drugs being detected on drivers.

-Count among them those pedestrians the Greens don't want tested, many of whom doubtless mount a motorcycle or drive some other motor vehicle after escaping the density of cbd traffic.

What Paul1405 is silent about is that underlying Shoebridge's attempts to sabotage police efforts to detect drug carriers (and thereby find out the dealers and traffickers) is the Greens belief that manufacturing and trafficking illicit drugs is trivial and using drugs should be legal.

-Remember how the Greens defended those convicted traffickers caught in Bali, saying that the offence was not serious at all. Say what? A million hits for Australian kids, many newbies at concerts and the like, and multi-millions for the criminals and enablers involved.

Is it any wonder the Greens lobby so hard for the bikies who manufacture and deal drugs. -Remember how the Greens and Labor leftists have rolled logs in the way of the State laws to deter gangs, often Middle-Eastern, from trafficking drugs? Together they have managed to 'deep six' the successful Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (VLAD), an Act of the Parliament of Queensland to "severely punish members of criminal organisations that commit serious offences". The bikies' challenges to the High Court failed, but the leftists did their dirty work for them.

"The hit rate is far higher than Random Breath Testing (RBT)" What is the relevance of that Beach? Unlike sniffer dogs at railway stations RBT is not solely conducted in King Street Newtown, or Botany Road Redfern. If RBT was getting it wrong 64-72% of the time, then we would have to look at the effectiveness of the RBT program, do you not agree. In 2006 the independent ombudsman recommended the sniffer dog program be ended in its random format. This focus on young people and disadvantaged people, what is it achieving? I say very little in the fight against the scourge that is illicit drugs in our community, and all at a substantial cost. It may have more to do with being seen to be doing something, than actually doing something.

As a hard right supporter of a police state I doubt you have much regard for civil liberties, or any sympathy for the rights of the common man. This is just another example of your glowing admiration for all things totalitarian.

I must remind you David Shoebridge was democratically elected by the people of New South Wales to represent them in the States Parliament, concepts that seem alien to you.

Shoebridge is a human headline. The electorate is demanding policing of drugs, a contest that some say is lost.

There is a drug epidemic in NSW and Sydney in particular. Drug use is the Number One problem affecting youth and now students. It is worse in some areas.

If Greens and leftists were at all concerned about youth they would NOT have sabotaged and now torpedoed Queensland's successful Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (VLAD), an Act of the Parliament to "severely punish members of criminal organisations that commit serious offences" and given a green light by the High Court.

Who do the Greens 'represent'? Obviously not the youth of Australia and their concerned parents and friends.

Who do the Greens 'represent'? Certainly not you Beach, we leave that to the likes of Pauline Hanson and Jim Saleam, along with others from the rabid right.

Roads Minister Duncan Gay announced today a state-wide drug-driving blitz in New South Wales to catch out drug drivers. This in my view is only a start as to what needs to be done to effectively deal with drug drivers. David Shoebridge rightly points out that this kind of testing is limited in its capacity, testing for small amounts of illegal drugs and does not test for driver impairment, which can be caused by legal drugs as well.

David said; "The fundamental problem with the police roadside drug testing is that it has nothing to do with removing drug impaired drivers from the road. The tests detect trace levels of only three illegal drugs and does not check for the most commonly used legal drugs that impair driving such as benzodiazepines, like Valium."

The Greens want to see real action on this and not simply political point scoring with an advertising blitz.