What Good Is a Pot-Sniffing Dog When Pot Is Legal?
Marijuana legalization complicates the use of drug-detecting canines.

Yesterday the Associated Press reported that a rug ordered by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office in Florida arrived emblazoned with the motto "In Dog We Trust." The sheriff's office said it was a mistake, but it also could be read as an expression of faith in a superhuman being that miraculously and mysteriously generates probable cause for searches. As I explain in my latest Forbes column, the legalization of marijuana is casting new doubts on that faith. Here is how the column starts:
Testifying before a House subcommittee last year, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration warned that marijuana legalization is bad for dogs. DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart was talking about pets that inadvertently eat cannabis-infused snacks. But she could have been referring to marijuana-detecting police dogs, which face an uncertain future in jurisdictions where a whiff of pot is no longer evidence of a crime.
As legalization takes effect in two more states this year, police and prosecutors in Oregon and Alaska are confronting the same canine conundrum that their counterparts in Colorado and Washington have been dealing with since 2012: What good is a dog trained to find marijuana when marijuana is legal?
[Thanks to Mark Sletten for the A.P. link.]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I wouldn't want God's name on a rug. I mean, people walk all over rugs.
In G-d we trust?
Whenever I see that, I always read it as 'Goddamn', which leads to some confusion.
There's always cocaine to sniff.
The problem is if the dog is trained to alert on legal pot, any criminal defense lawyer should object to the alert being used as basis for a search.
I assume that they'll claim that they retrained the dogs, and that claim will be accepted without real proof.
What Good Is a Pot-Sniffing Dog When Pot Is Legal?
Um, when you misplace your pot...? Duh.
Or if you're trying to determine if you're getting ripped off.
^ Only user lose drugs
user(s)
Way to go and fuck up that joke. No pot for you.
Hey, pot dispensaries need to stop shrink too!
We'll make great pets.
When pot is legal, a pot-sniffing dog is just as good as any other dog.
The real question is:
What good is a pot-sniffing dog when pot is illegal?
They should NEVER have been allowed to be used as justification to impinge on one's Fourth Amendment rights.
If you cannot question your accuser, as to what was smelled, or if a signal by the handler prompted the "alert", then your Sixth Amendment rights were violated.
How sad that, in all of these years of drug-sniffing dogs and the War on (Non-Corporate) Drugs. . . why nobody has come right out and said it in open court, "So, you're saying that, after the defendant exercised his 4th Amendment right not to be searched, you asked your dog for permission to search?"
You might as well ask: What good is a dog?
If you didn't have dogs, you'd have to sniff other dogs' butts yourself.
The dog in not at fault. The dog does what dogs do and what it was trained to do, sniff around.