Why confiscate gels not in ziplock bags after screening?

My bags were just searched at a gate lounge during a stopover in Dubai towards Sydney and I was asked to leave my toothpaste behind because it wasn't in a zip lock bag, and neither myself nor the airport officials had one for me to use.

As I had already been through Dubai airports security screening to reach the lounge, what possible reason was there to confiscate the toothpaste on the basis that it wasn't in a bag? Is this a legal thing?

My understanding of the ICAO regulations on liquids, gels and aerosols is that these bags are there to allow more efficient scanning of fluids as the bags can simply be removed from carry-on during x-ray scanning.

airport-security dxb

Best Answer

Often, there is little or no direct cost to having a few people get away with breaking a rule, but there would be a very large cost to having most people break it. The plastic bag rule supports quick, clear checks on the quantities involved. It only requires passengers to use easily obtained, inexpensive equipment. Large scale non-compliance, with lots of people carrying loose tubes of toothpaste etc., would be expensive in both money and passenger time at security checks.

I think it is important to consider the effect of enforcement and non-enforcement on future compliance.

Most travelers will react to this question by being even more careful to follow the plastic bag rule, especially if changing planes in Dubai. The effect of the security actions will be to tend to increase compliance, improving overall efficiency of the fluid quantity check.

Now suppose a question or answer here had indicated that Dubai security had let the OP's toothpaste through despite the lack of a plastic bag. What would the effect be on the future conduct of readers? At least some would see a green light not to bother with the plastic bag. That would lead to reduced compliance, and more time spent manually checking the number and size of fluid items each traveler is carrying.