REALLY stupid TSA agent at LAX
Aug 27, 2006 | 6:43 pm
#2
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 58,133
You should have refered this moron to a supervisor for retraining.
This "screener" is not a doctor. He had no business demanding any use of medicine.
Please call the TSA Hotline and let them know that their employees are exposing the TSA to serious legal action.
While the cowards "in charge" of the TSA may be good about skirting privacy laws and shielding themselves from prosecution on most other matters, an employee forcing someone to consume a product in a manner for which it is not prescribed should be easily proveable negligence.
This "screener" is not a doctor. He had no business demanding any use of medicine.
Please call the TSA Hotline and let them know that their employees are exposing the TSA to serious legal action.
While the cowards "in charge" of the TSA may be good about skirting privacy laws and shielding themselves from prosecution on most other matters, an employee forcing someone to consume a product in a manner for which it is not prescribed should be easily proveable negligence.
Aug 27, 2006 | 7:12 pm
#4
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by Spiff
You should have refered this moron to a supervisor for retraining.
This "screener" is not a doctor. He had no business demanding any use of medicine.
Please call the TSA Hotline and let them know that their employees are exposing the TSA to serious legal action.
While the cowards "in charge" of the TSA may be good about skirting privacy laws and shielding themselves from prosecution on most other matters, an employee forcing someone to consume a product in a manner for which it is not prescribed should be easily proveable negligence.
This "screener" is not a doctor. He had no business demanding any use of medicine.
Please call the TSA Hotline and let them know that their employees are exposing the TSA to serious legal action.
While the cowards "in charge" of the TSA may be good about skirting privacy laws and shielding themselves from prosecution on most other matters, an employee forcing someone to consume a product in a manner for which it is not prescribed should be easily proveable negligence.
...I would assume that the manufacturer of the spray is Big Pharm somehow. Call their consumer affairs number and tell THEM what happened. Believe me, the last thing that a drug company wants is a lawsuit coming from someone's else negligence/stupidity. Tell them that the TSA at LAX is advising that their drops be used "Off Label." (Use those exact two words.) Then explain how.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that it is Big Business that will get this madness changed.
Aug 27, 2006 | 8:52 pm
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: west of DFW airport
Programs: AA LT Gold 1.9 MM flying my way to LT PLAT
Posts: 11,074
Gads!
Some people might actually follow those idiotic orders! I don't think the results would be good!
Brilliant idea about telephoning the drug maker. I'm going to do that on one item.
Brilliant idea about telephoning the drug maker. I'm going to do that on one item.
Aug 28, 2006 | 9:01 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus. Eurobonus Millionaire
Posts: 38,711
Originally Posted by n5667
Since you can now take up to 4 ounces of non-prescription medication...
Aug 28, 2006 | 9:11 am
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,684
Originally Posted by xyzzy
Can I bring a 4oz container of Dihydrogen Monixide with me? It's non-prescription...
Mike
Aug 28, 2006 | 9:27 am
#10
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lahaina, Hawai'i
Programs: HA Pua. Platinum WP, PR, QF, UA, AA, DL, NW Prince Preferred
Posts: 4,786
Originally Posted by mikeef
Forget it. According to Wiki, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a tasteless, odorless substance that has, in the past, been used for torture. It sounds pretty dangerous to me.
Mike
Mike
Interesting that the chemical referenced above can either be administered, (by slow drip), OR withheld entirely, when used as an instrument of torture. And the worst part? This dangerous compound cannot be distinguished from a wide range of similar chemicals, including something as innocuous as water!
Aug 28, 2006 | 4:33 pm
#11
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: Starwood, Delta, and AA
Posts: 86
brillant
Originally Posted by bethster
This is a good thought, but I may be able to go you one better...
...I would assume that the manufacturer of the spray is Big Pharm somehow. Call their consumer affairs number and tell THEM what happened. Believe me, the last thing that a drug company wants is a lawsuit coming from someone's else negligence/stupidity. Tell them that the TSA at LAX is advising that their drops be used "Off Label." (Use those exact two words.) Then explain how.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that it is Big Business that will get this madness changed.
...I would assume that the manufacturer of the spray is Big Pharm somehow. Call their consumer affairs number and tell THEM what happened. Believe me, the last thing that a drug company wants is a lawsuit coming from someone's else negligence/stupidity. Tell them that the TSA at LAX is advising that their drops be used "Off Label." (Use those exact two words.) Then explain how.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that it is Big Business that will get this madness changed.
The Big Pharm company has lawyers and proabably would not be happy with the "off label" usuage. But then, now that I think about it, maybe they are happy that everyone has to buy one spray for home, buy another one on the road (and then throw it out).
Aug 28, 2006 | 4:45 pm
#12
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: PHL
Programs: Marriott LTT, Amtrak Select, Hertz 5*, AA Gold, IHG Plat, National Exec
Posts: 1,314
I may be missing something here, but wouldn't this have fit the bill of "4 oz or less of liquid, non-prescription medication"? There shouldn't have been any discussion at all.