When did TSA update their prohibited items list to include marijuana?
#1
Original Poster
FlyerTalk Evangelist


Join Date: May 2001
Location: MSY; 2-time FT Fantasy Football Champ, now in recovery.
Programs: AA lifetime GLD; UA Silver; Marriott LTTE; IHG Plat,
Posts: 14,814
When did TSA update their prohibited items list to include marijuana?
I was looking (for something else) on http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-informat...ohibited-items and saw something I hadn't seen or noticed before.
This seems to be the only item that even TSA does not regard as a threat to aviation, yet which is explicitly listed as prohibited.
Marijuana (including both medical and non-medical)*
Carry-on NO Checked NO
*Screening procedures are governed by federal law and designed to detect threats to aviation security. TSA officers do not search for marijuana or other drugs; however, if an item is found that may violate federal law during security screening, TSA will refer the matter to law enforcement. Whether or not marijuana is considered medical marijuana federal law provides no basis to treat medical marijuana differently than non-medical marijuana.
Carry-on NO Checked NO
*Screening procedures are governed by federal law and designed to detect threats to aviation security. TSA officers do not search for marijuana or other drugs; however, if an item is found that may violate federal law during security screening, TSA will refer the matter to law enforcement. Whether or not marijuana is considered medical marijuana federal law provides no basis to treat medical marijuana differently than non-medical marijuana.
#2
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FLL - Nice and Warm
Programs: TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 1,025
I hope they have FEDERAL police available, as local police would allow medical weed if the owner has the appropriate credentials. The person would be OK with the local and state police, and only a Federal law enforcement would have authority.
Or am I wrong?
Or am I wrong?
#3
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
Originally Posted by TSA
Whether or not marijuana is considered medical marijuana federal law provides no basis to treat medical marijuana differently than non-medical marijuana.
Federal law provides a basis to treat some medical marijuana differently than non-medical marijuana. And the same goes for other controlled narcotics too. Is the TSA unaware that federal law has provided some medical researchers a lawful right even to cocaine, for example? Much the same goes for marijuana too.
Possession and trafficking of such controlled narcotics for non-professional use is most frequently a federal crime; however some use of such controlled substances for medical purposes -- for example medical research -- is provided for under federal law.
I am no fan of recreational use of any mind-altering controlled substances, but I do expect that some controlled narcotics do have a role in medicine for purposes including palliative/hospice care and medical research.
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,678
*"Marihuana" is actually the term found in the USC.
Last edited by Ari; May 15, 2013 at 11:03 pm
#8
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,253
This simply makes clear what has been a point of confusion for travelers to/from states which have laws which in some form suggest that the possession of marijuana may be legal (with or without prescription). It remains a violation of federal law throughout the US.
Because marijuana is contraband, an Officer finding marijuana have an obligation to report that to law enforcement for whatever further action law enforcement chooses to take. That obligation is on the Officer, whether he has law enforcement authority or not. Would be the same for any federal employee who comes upon a violation of federal law.
There are many people who live in jurisdictions where marijuana possession laws have not been enforced for many years even before the current legal changes. They go on a trip to a location where it's taken very seriously and get bad surprises.
This kind of warning is helpful to those people. A way of saying, "leave it at home..."
Because marijuana is contraband, an Officer finding marijuana have an obligation to report that to law enforcement for whatever further action law enforcement chooses to take. That obligation is on the Officer, whether he has law enforcement authority or not. Would be the same for any federal employee who comes upon a violation of federal law.
There are many people who live in jurisdictions where marijuana possession laws have not been enforced for many years even before the current legal changes. They go on a trip to a location where it's taken very seriously and get bad surprises.
This kind of warning is helpful to those people. A way of saying, "leave it at home..."
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,985
This simply makes clear what has been a point of confusion for travelers to/from states which have laws which in some form suggest that the possession of marijuana may be legal (with or without prescription). It remains a violation of federal law throughout the US.
Because marijuana is contraband, an Officer finding marijuana have an obligation to report that to law enforcement for whatever further action law enforcement chooses to take. That obligation is on the Officer, whether he has law enforcement authority or not. Would be the same for any federal employee who comes upon a violation of federal law.
There are many people who live in jurisdictions where marijuana possession laws have not been enforced for many years even before the current legal changes. They go on a trip to a location where it's taken very seriously and get bad surprises.
This kind of warning is helpful to those people. A way of saying, "leave it at home..."
Because marijuana is contraband, an Officer finding marijuana have an obligation to report that to law enforcement for whatever further action law enforcement chooses to take. That obligation is on the Officer, whether he has law enforcement authority or not. Would be the same for any federal employee who comes upon a violation of federal law.
There are many people who live in jurisdictions where marijuana possession laws have not been enforced for many years even before the current legal changes. They go on a trip to a location where it's taken very seriously and get bad surprises.
This kind of warning is helpful to those people. A way of saying, "leave it at home..."
OK, a TSO finds marijuana, reports to local police and police takes no action. Why would that item not be permitted on the aircraft at that point since it is clearly not Weapons, Explosive, or Incendiary in nature?
#10
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 49,061
I suspect if that happens (someone on a flight from, say, WA to CO, two states that have legalized marijuana to some extent), TSA will summon federal authorities.
#11
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
I think I just answered my own question. But, even then, they can not detain the passenger, but just not allow them to to proceed. The passenger could still go back outside, ditch the MJ and try again. Right?
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist


Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,343
Until last week, Blogdad Bob, in his weekly gun post, had been silent for a very long time about clerks finding drugs. This, I believe, was because of all the ridicule we gave him and because of the legal issues this created. Not one of the 20 comments mentions finding pot in the guy's soda can. I suspect they were all censored.
From Pissy on down, they would have to keep telling people that their clerks don't look for drugs (or cash for that matter). When cases kept cropping up where clerks HAD, in fact, searched for drugs without any prohibited item justification, it was easiest for them to simply stop reporting Big Catches of drugs and cash.
I suspect the inclusion about pot (and not any other illegal drug by name) was put there because they were either told to put it there or a federal LE agency told the TSA to start looking for medical pot.
From Pissy on down, they would have to keep telling people that their clerks don't look for drugs (or cash for that matter). When cases kept cropping up where clerks HAD, in fact, searched for drugs without any prohibited item justification, it was easiest for them to simply stop reporting Big Catches of drugs and cash.
I suspect the inclusion about pot (and not any other illegal drug by name) was put there because they were either told to put it there or a federal LE agency told the TSA to start looking for medical pot.
#13
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 49,061
Until last week, Blogdad Bob, in his weekly gun post, had been silent for a very long time about clerks finding drugs. This, I believe, was because of all the ridicule we gave him and because of the legal issues this created. Not one of the 20 comments mentions finding pot in the guy's soda can. I suspect they were all censored.
From Pissy on down, they would have to keep telling people that their clerks don't look for drugs (or cash for that matter). When cases kept cropping up where clerks HAD, in fact, searched for drugs without any prohibited item justification, it was easiest for them to simply stop reporting Big Catches of drugs and cash.
I suspect the inclusion about pot (and not any other illegal drug by name) was put there because they were either told to put it there or a federal LE agency told the TSA to start looking for medical pot.
From Pissy on down, they would have to keep telling people that their clerks don't look for drugs (or cash for that matter). When cases kept cropping up where clerks HAD, in fact, searched for drugs without any prohibited item justification, it was easiest for them to simply stop reporting Big Catches of drugs and cash.
I suspect the inclusion about pot (and not any other illegal drug by name) was put there because they were either told to put it there or a federal LE agency told the TSA to start looking for medical pot.
#14
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 49,061
If the local LEO defers, who detains the passenger while the feds arrive? Does the TSA just find some before unknown reason to use their discretion to prevent the passenger from going into the sterile area?
I think I just answered my own question. But, even then, they can not detain the passenger, but just not allow them to to proceed. The passenger could still go back outside, ditch the MJ and try again. Right?
I think I just answered my own question. But, even then, they can not detain the passenger, but just not allow them to to proceed. The passenger could still go back outside, ditch the MJ and try again. Right?
So TSA could say that the pax with the pot has to complete the screening process before he/she is free to leave the airport. At that point, one TSO will summon the Feds while the others go into slo-o-ooow motion, testing and re-testing everything, identifying 'anomalies' that can only be resolved in a backroom inspection, necessary personnel for backroom inspection out-to-lunch/not immediately available...bla-bla.
Meanwhile, someone will almost certainly have contacted local LE higher-ups and described a suspected 'teww...' threat and requested backup assistance (detention until the Feds arrive) - and they will definitely get it.
#15
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,253
The marijuana itself is contraband. The pax is free to go and the marijuana is dealt with along with all other contraband (presumably turned over to law enforcement in batches and destroyed).

