Originally Posted by
ORDofcr
I am going to twist the meaning of this because so many people twist things into what they want and I feel left out of all the fun...
How 'bout we try something different? Let's untwist things:
So if someone had a large quantity of cocaine with them at 30,000ft and ingests a substantially large amount of it into their system, do they then not present a threat to aviation security?
To be clear, there's nothing intrinsically dangerous about onloading *any* quantity of cocaine to a commercial flight. On that we should agree since cocaine -- like alcohol, Xanax, dextroamphetamine, antidepressants and other psychoactive substances -- can't grow legs and deposit itself in the human bloodstream.
So the concern is with *possible*
future behaviors of pax, specifically those who may become intoxicated? Onboard intoxication is genuine concern but is already addressed by flight crews.
If the concern is really about detecting intent to harm then that's another thread for another time. The best we can do is screen for items that have some objective basis for keeping out of the pax cabin -- items that could be used in an instant to overpower others and render them defenseless. WEIs fit that standard; a kilo of coke, an ounce of pot, a liter of booze, a bottle of Xanax do not. That inflicting harm may come as the result of intoxication rather than clear deliberation and intent is just splitting hairs. The problem with screening for objects other than WEI is that it substitutes intrinsicism for critical engagement and ignores the fact that intention defies detection.
What if they lunge for the emergency exit window? Or the aircraft door? Or even the cockpit? What if they attack someone on the plane because of the high they are on because the cocaine in their bag was ok to come through the checkpoint?
You don't mean to suggest that flight crews haven't already dealt with or would know what to do with intoxicated pax (regardless of cause) who threaten to harm themselves and others?
I can already feel someone responding with "well you could stab someone with a pen." or "Rope is ok to come through the checkpoint and I could strangle someone with it."
What's wrong with those responses, in your opinion?
Let's just go ConAir style, no carry on bags, everyone restrained and inside a big cage in a cargo jet.
I realize you must be frustrated with some of the challenges thrown at you and your colleagues here in this forum, but ending a post like this doesn't incline anyone to respond seriously to you (although I did try).