The prevalence of illicit drug use is notably higher among music event attendees compared to the general population. Many attendees pre-plan their drug use, while others are influenced by the environment, making spontaneous decisions, often driven by peer dynamics.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The risks of drug toxicity and overdose at music events have become a serious public safety concern. A recent study reports that between 2000 and 2019, at least 64 attendees lost their lives to drug overdoses in Australia, with a rising trend observed. Predominantly, these fatalities involved young males in their 20s, with MDMA frequently detected.
The issue also affects females and older individuals, and substances like Ketamine are also contributing to these incidents. In about 20 per cent of the mortality cases, toxicity to multiple stimulants have been detected; party drugs often combined with alcohol.
Another study in NSW, analysing blood samples, found that nearly 62 per cent of documented overdose cases in 2018-2019 required ICU admission, while 5 instances resulted in fatalities.
Environmental and individual factors can significantly heighten the risk of drug-related incidents at music events. Overcrowding, high temperatures, and humidity can lead to hyperthermia, contributing to hospital admissions. This is especially concerning as Australia approaches its summer festival season. Multi-day events, dehydration, and intense physical activity further exacerbate these risks. Moreover, inexperienced users and those purchasing drugs at the event face higher risks of overdose or consuming adulterated substances.
The public health and safety risks posed by drug use at music events are undeniable. The ideal approach is, of course, to promote drug-free enjoyment at concerts through education of the risks, especially targeted at youth. However, it's only realistic to acknowledge that despite such initiatives, some attendees will still choose to consume drugs. This reality poses a challenge in protecting this demographic effectively.
For risk mitigation at music events, two key approaches are considered: visible policing and drug testing services. Visible policing acts as a deterrent, with sniffer dogs often deployed to detect drugs. In contrast, drug testing services provide information about the content and purity of drugs, aiding attendees in making safer choices. This can help prevent the use of dangerous substances and reduce the risks of overdose and health complications.
Implementing visible policing or drug testing services at music events presents a policy-making dilemma due to their mutual exclusivity. This raises critical questions: Does the deterrence effect of visible and punitive policing sufficiently prevent drug use? Conversely, could providing drug testing services be perceived as indirectly promoting or normalising drug use?
Addressing these complicated policy dilemmas requires empirical evidence, given the substantial arguments that exist for and against each approach. We can consider three key sources of evidence: 1) approaching potential music event attendees, asking them about their drug use experiences, behaviours and their reactions to different policies; 2) conducting pilot trials to observe real-world effects; 3) analysing the experiences and outcomes from other countries that have implemented these measures. Luckily, evidence in all these areas exist.
The existing public survey studies in the Australian contexts highlight the limited deterrent effect of drug dogs and their potential to increase health harms, including overdose, along with social and emotional impacts on individuals. They show that while street-level policing slightly reduces drug possession, it doesn't significantly affect drug purchasing or supply and might inadvertently encourage buying drugs inside the festival. An anonymous survey involving nearly 2000 Australian festival-goers revealed that only about 4 per cent of those who anticipated sniffer dogs being present reported that this deterred them from taking drugs. Punitive drug policing methods lead to behaviours such as pre-loading, internal concealment and panic consumption. In another survey of 1065 festival-goers who had used illicit drugs, 23 per cent admitted to internal concealment to avoid police detection, with 17 per cent engaging in panic consumption. The likelihood of internal concealment was higher among female respondents and those expecting drug detection dogs. Additionally, recent government data suggest a low rate of successful detection through sniffer dogs, with less than 50 per cent accuracy in Victoria and only about 25 per cent in NSW.
On the other hand, pill testing in Europe has produced relatively positive results, showing many festival attendees adopt safer practices due to access to drug information. Australia's initial experience with pill testing at the 2019 Groovin' the Moo Festival in Canberra also reflects this trend. The trial identified harmful substances in several samples and was well-received.
Overall, the existing empirical evidence challenge the efficacy of punitive measures like sniffer dogs at music events. The choice of the most effective harm reduction method is nuanced and difficult, with no panacea solution in sight.
However, while pill testing and sniffer dogs each have their limitations in the level of health protection that they offer, empirical evidence appears to be in favour of drug testing.
- Milad Haghani is a Senior Lecturer at UNSW Sydney, specialising in public safety.
