I agree that this sounds like a combination of bad TSA work and bad police work, but I'll explain a bit of what I think was going on, at least with regard to the drug charge.

California has a statute that makes it unlawful to be under the influence of a controlled substance. This applies to illicit drugs as well as prescription drugs that the user may have come upon unlawfully. It's a misdemeanor. When I worked in Nevada, we had a similar statute, but it was a felony (this has since changed).

There is a fairly rigid and well-established procedure for making the determination of whether someone is "on drugs" or not. It involves what amounts to a mini-medical exam, conducted by a specially trained officer designated as a Drug Influence Recognition Expert (DRE). The DRE training and certification course is fairly rigorous - many officers do not complete it successfully. I did, although that was about 20 years ago.

The exam includes several observations of the eyes with regard to tracking movement, pupil dilation under room light and dark room conditions (the latter using both a red and a white light), color of the sclera, etc. The exam also includes recording of pulse and blood pressure and respiration rates, examination of the nostrils, and a field sobriety test that is more or less the same as when determining if a person is under the influence of alcohol (in some jurisdictions, as many as 80% of those arrested for impaired driving are under the influence of drugs, either alone or in addition to alcohol).

An examination by a non-DRE is generally held as being worthless as evidence or as probable cause for an arrest.

The DRE determines whether the accused is under the influence of a controlled substance, and if so, what category of controlled substance. Precise identification of the drug is not possible at this level of expertise. Categories include opiates, stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, marijuana, and PCP. A well-trained, ethical DRE will almost never be wrong. If he is, his credibility is greatly injured for any future cases, and his certification is often withdrawn. The DRE's findings are most often confirmed by a chemical test.

The accused (in a non-driving case where the only charge is the unlawful use violation) can only be compelled to take a chemical test (urine or blood - a breath test measures only alcohol involvement) if there is a court order, called a seizure order. Otherwise, they may refuse.

What eastwest described didn't sound like anything remotely resembling the accepted practice. I have seen this kind of thing before, most often with officers who believe that they can make a DRE determination without the training or certification. If their supervisor is either lazy or complacent, they can get away with it.

All that said, I think eastwest could have handled this a little better by going along with the program for his own sake, even if he was to complain later (which I encourage him to do). Standing up for one's rights is appropriate, but doing it in the wrong forum only brings trouble. At the side of the road, or, in this instance, at the security checkpoint, Mr. Officer Is Always Right. Arguing or insisting that he can't do something that he says he can is going to turn into a p***ing contest that the citizen will not win. Go with the flow, be polite, ask for names and ID numbers (most law enforcement agencies require their employees to give this information when asked - if they refuse, note physical descriptions and nametags/badge numbers), and make your case when you're not on their turf.

But I hope that eastwest, at a minimum, makes a complaint to the LE agency involved. That is the only way that bad employees can be disciplined or terminated.

As for the rubber band ball, I haven't the first clue.