The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[BecciBoo]

O.K. at the risk of flamers...again...I'll jump in.

What breach of contract??? They packed something legal in a can meant to hide jewelry, etc. What rule did they break. The stuff was not contraband....what risk??? The contract does not specify what containers you may pack your crap in:rolleyes: Many pipe smokers smoke flavored tobacco, it doesn't matter what they named it.

The supposition that they were testing the waters for other substances is just that, an assumption.

They broke no rules, co-operated with authorities and by all rights should have proceeded on their cruise. Those are the only concrete facts as presented by the above report. It still worries me. Now do I have to watch exactly how and what I pack my crap in???

Go ahead flame away.

[sazzifrazz]

Ok, I can see why this would cause red flags, and it certainly was stupid of her husband to do this but....exactly what rule did they break? if it were a pack of marlboros in that fake can would they be kicked off? I think they should have been allowed on, without the fake can :rolleyes:

 

Was RCI just annoyed with the stupid passenger because he caused such a comotion? maybe.

[LittleMissMagic]

I still feel sorry for the OP. I'm not sure that she did anything wrong (not that she'd have wanted to cruise alone on their anniversary). She's a much nicer person than anyone I know, because in her shoes, my friends and I would be staring daggers at the husband for YEARS to come. (In fact she did appear to be very nice and polite in her posts.)

 

For real - everyone is fussing at the OP for not telling the "entire story," but I don't blame her. She was protecting her husband's dignity. Very admirable, in my opinion.

 

I do think it's a little messed up that people actually smuggle and attempt to smuggle alcohol onboard all the time, but he "smuggles" on a legal substance and can't board the ship? While the argument that he displayed the fact that he had the equipment to smuggle illegal substances onboard is definitely valid, I wouldn't ignore that the officers were probably embarassed/disappointed that they didn't have a real drug bust and wanted to make sure that in the end, they still won. Probably a mixture of a safety precaution and power trip.

 

But I think the wife should have been allowed to reboard if she wanted to (of course, why would she want to, but still). She was only guilty by association.

[PH8]

All I want to know is why didn't Hagerz tell us the part about the can with the false bottom?? Why did she say a baggie??:confused:

[LittleMissMagic]

All I want to know is why didn't Hagerz tell us the part about the can with the false bottom?? Why did she say a baggie??:confused:

 

Probably because she didn't want us to think badly about her husband? She loves him - they were celebrating their 4th wedding anniversary, and even though he pretty much ruined the trip for the two of them, she still has his back.

[BillB48]

Ok, not the best PAX judgement, but what part of the guest policy was violated? If that's RCI's stand, yes, very interesting...

 

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

 

Agreed! In retrospect not a smooth move concealing the stuff. I too would like to know what RCI policy they violated not to be permitted to sail. They were put off for being high risk, I don't think that is in the contract. Them being declared high risk by the Captain was a judgement call by RCI since they were not carrying any illegal substance. RCI should just give them the entire fare and be done with it. I don't think "high risk" is a reason to be denied boarding as there has been no breach of the policy. Is a old person in poor health a high risk or parents traveling with rambunctious teenagers any higher of a risk? Seems to be too much gray here.

[Sharon Sails]

WHY THE NEED for this substance - whatever it was?

Why isn't a cruise enough? If you need to smoke - whatever he was "smuggling" on board - do it at home. I really don't see why anyone is upset with RCI. It's a friggin' CRUISE! It's enough fun w/o whatever tobacco he was hiding. Have a few drinks if you need them. Geez, people. :cool:

[BecciBoo]

It was in a baggie, then in the can.

I have hidden my jewelry in an empty cold cream jar on trips before, should that have kept me from cruising? I don't see any difference. A legal item not mentioned in the contract in a legal container not mentioned in the contract and a lot of people who won't admit they were dead wrong and made a lot of assumptions which were groundless. The law of the land in this country is still "Innocent until proven guilty" but the price for being guilty was paid in full by this couple. That's how I see it. I bet they win their suite.

[Rockfordcruiser]

All I want to know is why didn't Hagerz tell us the part about the can with the false bottom?? Why did she say a baggie??:confused:

 

Well it was in a baggie... just left out it was concealed in a false bottom can... And hey if, i get caught its still a legal substance right... Doesn't every body put there pipe and tobacco in a false bottom can when cruising to other countries?

[teajak]

I didn't read much of this whole story from the original OP because I just didn't care about it. That said, if he hid something in a faux bottom can - he was a risk. People who do that are going to try to smuggle something onboard from an island. That's what any clear thinking person would assume. I mean, why else would you "smuggle" plain old tobacco on board a cruise ship. Seriously.

Totally agree,but also think he gets A+ in the stupidity rating, what a dumb thing to do.How mad would you be if your partner or husband pulled that and you didn't know about it?:eek::mad::o

[BecciBoo]

WHY THE NEED for this substance - whatever it was?

Why isn't a cruise enough? If you need to smoke - whatever he was "smuggling" on board - do it at home. I really don't see why anyone is upset with RCI. It's a friggin' CRUISE! It's enough fun w/o whatever tobacco he was hiding. Have a few drinks if you need them. Geez, people. :cool:

 

Because it's a free country and one should be allowed to do whatever they want on their vacation as long as it's legal, breaks no rules and doesn't infringe on others rights. And that's exactly what they did.

[johneeo]

You don't think hiding "a pack" of cigarettes is somewhat different than hiding a baggie of (what may or may not be) tobacco and a pipe?

 

This is why I always use a "TobaccoRunner" for all of my smoke, and pack it right next to my RumRunners:rolleyes:

[sredish]

100% in agreement with RCI and El Capitan on this one, folks. And no, they should NOT get a dime back of their money. Plain ole tobacco and roll your own papers are one thing...but "summer swing" and a pipe hidden in the bottom of a false hairspray can?? Pipes are used for a whole lot more than "summer swing" and to ME that screams intent to purchase. And if "summer swing" is the only thing to have ever been smoked in that ole pipe, then I'll gladly buy them a future cruise.

 

I feel pretty duped because I agreed with the OP and felt so sorry for her. I imagined myself and what I would feel like had my anniversary trip been ripped from my hands.

 

Why on earth would she come on here and post a story with more holes than swiss cheese and THEN admit to CC to a totally different story and THEN contact attorneys?? Good luck with that one, sister.

 

Mary, Mary quite contrary.

[MommaOf3Princesses]

Oh, OK. I defended the OP on the other thread, but things much clearer now. Typical 'dummy run', Captain worried they are going shopping for something in the islands, which they will smuggle back onboard the same way, therefore high risk.

 

They are getting nothing, with or without a lawyer, I think. Unless the Captain was actually misinformed that the test was positive (but even then I think RCI will ignore the refund request).

 

Very good point.

[sredish]

Totally agree,but also think he gets A+ in the stupidity rating, what a dumb thing to do.How mad would you be if your partner or husband pulled that and you didn't know about it?:eek::mad::o

 

I am 100% sure she knew about it. She wouldn't have asked him...huh...what's that other can of hairspray?

[LittleMissMagic]

Just a thought - since the OP seems to be entirely innocent, except by association, perhaps she should fight to get them to refund HER HALF of the cruise fare?

[reallyitsmema]

For real - everyone is fussing at the OP for not telling the "entire story," but I don't blame her. She was protecting her husband's dignity. Very admirable, in my opinion.

 

I do think it's a little messed up that people actually smuggle and attempt to smuggle alcohol onboard all the time, but he "smuggles" on a legal substance and can't board the ship? While the argument that he displayed the fact that he had the equipment to smuggle illegal substances onboard is definitely valid, I wouldn't ignore that the officers were probably embarassed/disappointed that they didn't have a real drug bust and wanted to make sure that in the end, they still won. Probably a mixture of a safety precaution and power trip.

 

But I think the wife should have been allowed to reboard if she wanted to (of course, why would she want to, but still). She was only guilty by association.

If she was "protecting her husband's dignity", why start the original thread to begin with?

[DaveG99]

100% in agreement with RCI and El Capitan on this one, folks. And no, they should NOT get a dime back of their money. Plain ole tobacco and roll your own papers are one thing...but hookah and a pipe hidden in the bottom of a false hairspray can?? Pipes are used for a whole lot more than hookah and to ME that screams intent to purchase. And if hookah is the only thing to have ever been smoked in that ole pipe, then I'll gladly buy them a future cruise.

 

I feel pretty duped because I agreed with the OP and felt so sorry for her. I imagined myself and what I would feel like had my anniversary trip been ripped from my hands.

 

Why on earth would she come on here and post a story with more holes than swiss cheese and THEN admit to CC to a totally different story and THEN contact attorneys?? Good luck with that one, sister.

 

Mary, Mary quite contrary.

 

Good thing you are not a judge or in law enforcement!

[hiccups]

The law of the land in this country is still "Innocent until proven guilty" but the price for being guilty was paid in full by this couple. That's how I see it. I bet they win their suite.

 

Except this is a situation between RCI and the OP. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really apply in this case.

 

I can understand why RCI deemed him high risk, unfortunately. Putting it in the false bottom can was a big mistake.

[sredish]

Good thing you are not a judge or in law enforcement!

 

Probably why I've never been chosen for jury duty. They never seem to like me.

[LittleMissMagic]

If she was "protecting her husband's dignity", why start the original thread to begin with?

 

Because she didn't know what to do and wanted help?

[monn_a]

I was actually suspicious at first, but the article kind of makes me vote for the couple. In one paragraph it states the RCI security tested the tobacco and it was positive (as a controlled substance), this is probably the only report the Captain got. Port officials said the test was negative (probably never conveyed to the Captain). I understand the possibility of dry running a smuggle test (because I thought that too). My issue is if RCI security said it tested positive and that it was destroyed, two things that were proven false later can they really be trusted to display good judgment? NOT...I think they were denied boarding because of misinformation to the captain. It's like Minority Report, I can't presume a criminal act based on "profiling"...

 

I have a right to pack any way I feel. I have a right to smoke any legal substance I chose (I don't smoke).

[Pomperaugrr]

This is why I always use a "TobaccoRunner" for all of my smoke, and pack it right next to my RumRunners:rolleyes:

 

I know those! They are made by the same company that markets the Cuban Cigar Runners!

 

Don't forget the Chiuaua Runners for people that want to sneak their pets onboard.! ;)

 

 

Eric

[BecciBoo]

If she was "protecting her husband's dignity", why start the original thread to begin with?

 

Well I agree with this statement. Knowing what I know about Cruise Critic threads, it was really stupid to even mention it.

I do think it was poor judgment, but again, they were unfarely penalized.

And a "hookah" IS a pipe sredfish...a water pipe. He did not have a hookah. The variety of tobacco was named "Hookah summer something" there was no hookah involved. The pipe did not test positive either evidently.:rolleyes:

[bajathree]

All I want to know is why didn't Hagerz tell us the part about the can with the false bottom?? Why did she say a baggie??:confused:

 

She hesitated to answer what her husband was going to smoke it with...she finally responded "with a pipe like Popeye used"....I don't ever remember Popeye using a "chamber-type pipe"

 

Do a search on Google for chamber-type pipe...this is what the results look like: