Recently, there has been debate whether pill testing will aid in the prevention of overdoses at music festivals or not. In Alfred Poulos’ editorial to The Age ‘date’, he argues the dangerous contingencies attached to the pill testing program, highlighting the factors that opposes the effectiveness of it. Similarly, in Smith’s transcript response in the ABC, published on 18/02/19,  he argues against pill testing by highlights the audience’s ambivalence on the issue and appeals to their humanitarian values to realise the flaws in the operation.
Smith argues the ambivalence of pill testing and addresses the flaws and why it shouldn’t be implemented. He acknowledges the tragic deaths from overdoses at festivals and uses this to undermine pill testing. Smith highlights the futility of it by informing that the “loss of life” is caused by polydrug use, and how he is “not sure how pill testing is going to fix that issue.” This positions humanitarians to feel doubt whether pill testing will actually save lives. Smith goes on to suggest a possible flaw in it are the users that consume their drug in “preparation to go into the festival”, thus negating the use of pill testing. Overall, this will create a sense of doubt towards liberals as he points out the gaps, discrediting the solidification of the potential system. Stuart Smith then argues the difficulty in dealing with a polydrug user in pill testing. This is because of the user’s addiction being a strong factor that could easily overrule the analysis and warnings in pill testing. By stating that the drugs can be “obtained from a drugstore”, this reveals a possibility that drugs can be easily purchased by polydrug users. Furthermore, Smith rebuts that the efficacy of pill testing will not be effective because Smith states that 29,000 deaths are from prescription drugs, and because they are approved by doctors, they cannot be labelled as unsafe, thus discrediting pill testing. In essence, he is saying that the polydrug users are self-willed drug takers, and despite knowing the risks involved, they still take them. Lastly, Smith criticizes pill testing as it may “give someone a false sense of security.” The chief believes this is a problem because by professional doctors acknowledging that there are dangerous illicit drugs circulating the festival, it does not completely remove any potential injuries. This in turn may remove the guilt of drug users and will only encourage potential deaths. Smith is against pill testing as it is flawed with the adamant drug users, and the false sense of security it entails by decriminalizing it.
Similarly, Alfred Poulos argues the contingencies included in the pill testing program and the external factors, effectively undermining it. What he has established is that the program itself can successfully identify the harmful substances in pills, however, he counters this with its factor that the constitution of harmfulness in each individual may differ. In a similar fashion to Smith’s attempt in pointing out the flaws and gaps of pill testing, Poulos reveals that the other factors that can vary to the ‘safe’ drug due to factors such as “genetic susceptibility”, or “synergistic reactions with other drugs”. By elucidating these factors, he has elicited an appeal to fear in the reader, as they are made aware of the possible “adverse reactions” and even possible “deaths”. Similarly through Smith’s use of logical statistics, Poulos links in a credible source and shows how the pharmaceutical industry has known about the synergistic reactions and has reacted to this by “withdrawing some drugs” from the market to mitigate this. In essence, Poulos has questioned the efficacy of pill testing and has undermined it with the possible flaws in its program.
In essence, both authors have utilised logos and ethos to undermine the effectiveness of pill      testing. Both similarly undermine it by pointing out the gaps in the pill testing and explains why it wouldn’t work. Through this, they aim to make the reader feel vulnerable and ambivalent towards pill testing, and fearful that it won’t actually save lives.