Confiscated items only make sense if security exercises the slightest care over handling those items. If an object is potentially dangerous, a team of people in bunny suits should be hauling it <i>away from the crowd of people at the checkpoint</i> as soon as possible in a strong protective container and the person who brought it should be in handcuffs.<p>The reality of course is that this stuff is thrown in a pile and kept in the middle of a much larger crowd of people than you'd ever see on an airplane. Worse, all the "dangerous" objects are allowed to mingle. If these things are <i>actually</i> dangerous, then security agents are being criminally irresponsible by exposing the threat to an unnecessarily-large group. And for that matter, anything <i>actually</i> dangerous should be viewed that way by other people, wouldn't you say? (If an uncaged rabid rottweiler were in the middle of the checkpoint, I guarantee you that people would be paying attention to <i>that</i>, so why not any of these other "threats"?)<p>As far as I can tell, security is either <i>wasting its time</i> by confiscating non-threatening materials, or being <i>criminally negligent</i> by not treating threatening materials seriously. Either way, there is a problem. And of course I think the overwhelmingly obvious solution is to let people keep their toothpaste and cupcakes so we can get on with our lives.
<i>I guess we were also amazed at what can pass through security in one airport, but not in another</i><p>I've had stuff pass at one airport and confiscated at another. I flew to a meeting in California earlier this year, and my toiletries (packed in a clear ziplock bag) went unchallenged on the flight out, but my toothpaste was confiscated on the return flight.