> Nobody has mentioned smuggling except you.
OK OK, my mistake, I should have said guilty of drug supply or usage, that's what you were implying with your "those who admitted to taking drugs", was it not?
But the proposition that his denied boarding could have been as result of drug-related convictions is even more absurd. Any journo worth his salt, even one from the Daily Mail, would have been able to ascertain that and there would have been no need to "hint hint".
I'd give up on the druggy insinuations, if I were you, you are reading something into that article that just isn't there.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be something as simple as his name matching someone who has been recently added to the no-fly list. Plenty of documented instances of that.