2 ms·

> Which also means that K-9's should have to be replaced with new K-9's that aren't trained to smell or "indicate" on marijuana because they can't distinguish b

> Which also means that K-9's should have to be replaced with new K-9's that aren't trained to smell or "indicate" on marijuana because they can't distinguish between legal THC-A weed vs. illegal delta-9 weed. So their "indication" can't be considered a reliable piece of evidence when they still indicate on legal material. I'd agree with most dogs that have already been trained. However, I'd be curious to see if a dog could be trained to differentiate the two. I wouldn't discount it out of hand, those noses are something else.

0x457 3y ago
Didn't we already learn that K-9 mostly take cues from their handler rather than actually working? https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-bias-when-handling-dogs-that-bite https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-b... https://www.animallaw.info/article/cueing-and-probable-cause-research-may-increase-defense-attacks-and-judicial-skepticism https://www.animallaw.info/article/cueing-and-probable-cause...
- Clubber 3y ago
  That's like the counting horse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  Fair enough. In a more just world, it would be interesting to see if dogs could differentiate the two by smell.
ch4s3 3y ago
Even if you could train a dog to reliably do that, how do you train people to reliably operate the dog? This is the problem with drug dogs now, they are highly attuned to the desires of their handlers.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  It's worse than that. In principle you could easily avoid K9 detection just by putting the drugs in an airtight container. In practice it's hard to avoid any of the drugs getting on the outside of the container or any person who walks into a room with them, and the dog may be able to smell that. But the same is true when you don't actually have any drugs. Walking through a room (e.g. a club) where someone else has drugs can cause the scent to get on you. Infamously, the majority of cash has traces of drugs on it. So the dog can't detect a kilo of drugs in an airtight container, but it can detect traces of drugs outside of it, which are commonly on people who don't actually have any drugs. The whole thing is a pretext.

0x457 3y ago

Didn't we already learn that K-9 mostly take cues from their handler rather than actually working? https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-bias-when-handling-dogs-that-bite https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-b... https://www.animallaw.info/article/cueing-and-probable-cause-research-may-increase-defense-attacks-and-judicial-skepticism https://www.animallaw.info/article/cueing-and-probable-cause...

Clubber 3y ago
That's like the counting horse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
Fair enough. In a more just world, it would be interesting to see if dogs could differentiate the two by smell.

ch4s3 3y ago

Even if you could train a dog to reliably do that, how do you train people to reliably operate the dog? This is the problem with drug dogs now, they are highly attuned to the desires of their handlers.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
It's worse than that. In principle you could easily avoid K9 detection just by putting the drugs in an airtight container. In practice it's hard to avoid any of the drugs getting on the outside of the container or any person who walks into a room with them, and the dog may be able to smell that. But the same is true when you don't actually have any drugs. Walking through a room (e.g. a club) where someone else has drugs can cause the scent to get on you. Infamously, the majority of cash has traces of drugs on it. So the dog can't detect a kilo of drugs in an airtight container, but it can detect traces of drugs outside of it, which are commonly on people who don't actually have any drugs. The whole thing is a pretext.