I doubt a typical tea bag holds a quarter-ounce of tea leaves, but regardless, the tea leaves you're thinking of in those bags is probably ground, so they're quite a bit more dense -- weighing more per unit of volume or occupying less space per unit of weight -- than this guy's pot did.

For an idea of what volume 3/4 oz. of dried cannabis flowers is going to occupy, picture a sandwich baggie about 1/2 to 3/4 full. Not filled like it would be with loose tea leaves or oregano from your spice cabinet, but with stuff like you see in this image on Wikipedia (for scale, figure the jar in that picture is about 2.5 inches in diameter) or in this one. You could compress it quite a bit from there, as you might do if you grew it outside in a field someplace where one can get away with such open-air gardening, then needed to smuggle it elsewhere in as little space as possible, but such treatment -- resulting in what's sometimes called "brick weed" because it's compressed and packaged in brick-shaped quantities -- is not desirable.

In the black market that we've created through our policies of drug prohibition, that 3/4 ounce of plant matter would sell for about $250.

Over 700,000 people per year are arrested for possession of marijuana in the United States. Like Terry Turner, many of them spend time imprisoned as a result. It's a shameful and deeply immoral situation. Someday, people will look back and wonder what in the world we were thinking.

i'll do you one better.....i always carry a travel size plastic bottle of baby powder with me and where it is cheaper to buy a larger size and refill the travel size, the cover of the travel bottle looks like it's been thru the ringer in terms of being pried off and replaced many times but do you think anyone has aver noticed (and i keep said plastic bottle of baby powder in my freedom baggie on purpose ;))

You're right. I made an incorrect assumption using ground tea as the reference (also tea bags for making a gallon at once).

As to the search, well, if it was in a container that caused a TSO to up the ante, (:td:) then the guy made a mistake. If the TSO found something organic on the x-ray, then IMHO he overstepped the bounds of his administrative search for WEI (:mad::td:).

Won't discuss the legality of recreational drug use for a multitude of reasons. That's something for the people through governmental processes to change.

I'm thinking a Kippie Bag of coffee creamer. I want it out in the open enough to be found.

Nothing like fishing for a hobby.:p

Comrade and fellow resistance fighters, we should fully expect that in the not to distant future the TSA (with complete support from their diehard minion) will declare that anyone who questions the TSA or who fails to immediately follow TSA orders is un-American.

It's nice that elected officials are still fighting WBI (and Ron won't get his cheap thrills) this is my prediction:

[whiny petulant voice]But you can't ban them, we've spent so much money on them already.[/voice]

That's why they're pushing ahead so diligently. I'll bet that these scanners are completely non-refundable and non-resellable.

Yes. One of those we do, one we don’t. That “should” be clear enough. If not, then you need to look at your own motivations and personal proclivities for the answer.

I think you misunderstood my question. The fact that you do one thing and not another thing is not a manner in which the two things differ. What you do is not part of those two things. I want to know what you think the difference, if any, between the two procedures I described is.

Here are the two procedures again:

1. TSA staff examine the content of someone's bag using an X-ray machine and/or their hands and naked eyes. They claim to be "looking for" weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. If they see something that looks like a weapon, explosive, or incendiary (things for which they are looking) or something that looks like an illegal drug (something which they consider incidental to the search) they must contact a supervisor.
2. TSA staff examine the content of someone's bag using an X-ray machine and/or their hands and naked eyes. They claim to be "looking for" weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and illegal drugs. If they see something that looks like a weapon, explosive, incendiary, or illegal drug (things for which they are looking) they must contact a supervisor.

Here, again, are my suggested test cases for evaluating how those procedures differ. This time, I'll include how I think a TSA employee would react in each case:

1. while performing search #1, find something that looks like a weapon (stop and contact supervisor)
2. while performing search #2, find something that looks like a weapon (stop and contact supervisor)
3. while performing search #1, find something that looks like illegal drugs (stop and contact supervisor)
4. while performing search #2, find something that looks like illegal drugs (stop and contact supervisor)
5. while performing search #1, find something that looks like a travel pillow (ignore)
6. while performing search #2, find something that looks like a travel pillow (ignore)
7. while performing search #1, find something that looks like evidence of burglary and transportation of stolen goods (a bag of watches and a photograph of the passenger breaking into a jewelry store) (ignore)
8. while performing search #2, find something that looks like evidence of burglary and transportation of stolen goods (a bag of watches and a photograph of the passenger breaking into a jewelry store) (ignore)

Does that sound right? If not, please explain what's wrong. If so, then how are these two procedures different in effect? Can you propose a test case that would have you or your colleagues reacting differently depending on which of the two procedures you're performing?

Oh good, you're back.

In two earlier posts, you stated "If while I am searching for that mystic WEI I find your plastic baggie full of leafy green stuff, I am going to refer it to my supervisor for action" and "Makes the call for a LEO easy as pie," and "SOP give us a list of things we must report. Since we are not law enforcement officers it is not our place to make determinations of the legality of items other than WEI."

There is no SOP in existence that can tell you if a white powder is a WEI, or if not WEI, is or is not illegal. Since it is impossible to tell what the white powder you find during your authorized search for WEI is without a test, and you are not supposed to be looking for items that aren't WEI, if you aren't calling for an LEO every time you find a bag of white powder, aren't you indeed "making a determination of the legality of items other than WEI?"

Since you are not a qualified LEO, you don't have the authority or experience to make that determination. Correct?

No Phil, I know what you are asking, and I’m giving you an answer. Its not the one you want, its not one you are going to like, but there it is. One procedure we do, the other we don’t.

Ahh but I am a qualified LEO. I just don’t do it anymore.

One does not need to be a qualified LEO to be suspicious of something halls. Suspicious items are brought to the attention of the supervisor. Powders can indeed be explosives. Drugs can indeed be a threat to an aircraft. Criminals are a threat to an aircraft.

If the supervisor hands it back and says its not a concern, back into the bag it goes and everyone is happy. If he calls a LEO and the LEO says its not a concern, back into the bag it goes and everyone’s happy. If the LEO says it IS a concern, back into the bag it goes and the LEO takes it, bag and all. I am off to the next bag and I’m happy. What happens from there is none of my business. Sure I’m going to be curious, but that’s not what I get paid for. I make no determinations of legality of anything other than WEI. Everything else is for the LEO to determine. Period.

If you're not current, you're not qualified. Period.

Explain.

How can drugs be a threat to an aircraft?

How can a criminal (say, junior shoplifter) be a threat to an aircraft? Do you realize what percentage of the American population has some kind of criminal record?

By that statement alone you are justifying (and proving) that TSA screeners like you are truly running a dragnet.

Ron, if someone asks you, "What is the difference between eating an apple and eating an orange," and you reply, "One I do and the other I don't," you have not explained the difference between the two. You've described something about yourself.

At this time, I'm not asking you about you, TSA, or any real person. I'm asking you about two procedures:

1. People examine the content of someone's bag using an X-ray machine and/or their hands and naked eyes. They claim to be "looking for" weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. If they see something that looks like a weapon, explosive, or incendiary (things for which they are looking) or something that looks like an illegal drug (something which they consider incidental to the search) they must contact a supervisor.
2. People examine the content of someone's bag using an X-ray machine and/or their hands and naked eyes. They claim to be "looking for" weapons, explosives, incendiaries, and illegal drugs. If they see something that looks like a weapon, explosive, incendiary, or illegal drug (things for which they are looking) they must contact a supervisor.

The problem is not that I don't like your answer, it's that what you wrote is not an answer to my question. If someone asked you what you ate for dinner, and you replied by saying that the sky is blue, you responded, but you didn't answer the question.

Are you afraid to answer the question? I mean, do you think doing so is going to get you in trouble?

Classic Ron.

And he wonders why his credibility is questioned...

:td:

No, you aren't. that you think you are demonstrates a considerable lack of judgment on your part.

I agree that one does not need to be a LEO to have suspicion. Since you are no longer a qualified LEO, do you bring every bag of white powder to the attention of your supervisor?

If you do not call a supervisor every time you encounter a suspicious item, you in fact are exercising your discretion, correct? And since you are no longer a qualified LEO, when you exercise this discretion, aren't you in fact conducting an administrative search beyond the scope of your authority?