The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[EVALUATOR]

If the person put cash in the fake shaving cream can, would that be ok?

 

Because basically if RCI has a policy that allows one to carry on tobacco and pipes, technically its the same a carrying on cash in one of those can things. If its allowed its allowed.

 

I don't understand what bearing when and how the person got the can plays in this?

 

I think RCI has a problem with this contractually. However, the cruise industry is notorious for having unfair consumer contracts, so I am sure there is a catch all security provision which at the very least protects RCI with these type of issues.

 

Interesting stuff.

 

Funny thing is the cash would have probably tested positive for drugs quicker then the tobacco did.

[cruiseMI82]

hi all,

 

I would have posted this in the original thread if I could find it but I can't.

 

I'm the one that was pushing Hager to give us the WHOLE story in the original thread. I got called names, heckled and ended up getting a short ban for what I said, but I am here now to say "I TOLD YOU SO!"

 

you were all giving me so much grief for waving my BS flag at the OP, and calling her out because she was trying to play on your all's emotions. I didn't buy it and called her out, pretty much had an angry mob after me, but look who's laughing now. She lied to you all, played you like a fiddle to try and start a lynch mob against RCI, just to look like a fool when the truth comes out.

 

apologies accepted!!!

[Pushka]

I really hope someone has made the point that innocent until proven guilty, if it exists at all, exists only in the US justice system.

 

And a coupla other countries.;)

 

Fact is, the captain made a judgment call based on the totality of the circumstances: he had drug paraphernalia, that was bought brand new

 

he had a pipe, not drug "paraphenalia" and that it is new is well, a nothing. Your assumption about THC is just that, an assumption.

 

he was using a common method of concealing drugs to try to get it on board instead of having it out in the open,

 

Yes, except he wasn't concealing something that tested positive to THC.

 

they're going to islands where attempts to smuggle drugs back on board is rampant,

 

Really? Haven't read that before.

 

it's a family cruiseline, the guy probably became defensive when confronted, etc etc etc. It was reasonable.

 

Again, another assumption. You have no idea how he reacted.

 

hi all,

 

I would have posted this in the original thread if I could find it but I can't.

 

I'm the one that was pushing Hager to give us the WHOLE story in the original thread. I got called names, heckled and ended up getting a short ban for what I said, but I am here now to say "I TOLD YOU SO!"

 

you were all giving me so much grief for waving my BS flag at the OP, and calling her out because she was trying to play on your all's emotions. I didn't buy it and called her out, pretty much had an angry mob after me, but look who's laughing now. She lied to you all, played you like a fiddle to try and start a lynch mob against RCI, just to look like a fool when the truth comes out.

 

apologies accepted!!!

 

Not from me. Not that I remember you or what you said specifically or why you got banned.

 

All that we have extra is that he put the Item in a concealed container. We have RCL saying it tested positive and was destroyed, and two other parties saying it didn't and was returned to the person. Wouldn't get too excited just yet.

[sleepless]

How did she lie repeatedly? The only missing fact I see so far is that the tobacco was inisde a false bottom can. She still said the tobacco was in a baggie.

 

 

Keep in mind, none of us were there, so we do not know what was actually said or what actually happened.

 

1A. It is my understanding that the Original OP (on other thread) stated that the "tobacco" was in a baggie in a pocket of the dive bag.

 

1B. This current thread indicates that the "tobacco" was in a baggie, stored in a false bottom can, and in luggage.

 

2A. The Original OP indicated that the tobacco was regular tobacco that would be used to roll a cigarette or put in a regular pipe.

 

2B. This current thread indicates that the OP's DH stated that the "tobacco" could look like weed (not regular tobacco"

 

Those are major differences.

[marci22]

I don't understand the dry run thing either. He would be trying to smuggle back an illegal substance in the bottom of a hairspray can? From port onto the ship? Why go to so much trouble when you can buy it here on an average street corner?

 

Was it for him to smoke on his balcony? That would be pretty stupid.

[waterbug123]

I've followed both threads and frankly the thing that bothers me most is RC's apparent twisting of the story.

 

The OP's husband did something very dumb. Yes, it sure looks like he was making a "dry run," and that may have been enough to deem him high risk and have boarding denied. His wife then distorted the story on cruise critic, by failing to mention the intentional concealment. But that's not the end of it.

 

Port officials tested the tobacco to see if it was an illegal substance. The conclusion of the port officials was that it was not, and the police report supports that conclusion. CC has a copy of the police report and concurs as well. That is enough substantiation for me.

 

So why hasn't RC just said that the intentional concealment caused the pax to be deemed high risk and denied boarding? Instead, they have stated that the substance tested positive and was confiscated, in direct contradiction the port/police report. Why such a different story???

 

My opinion (and yes, it is just my opinion) is that RC realizes they made a mistake. While the captain may have been within his rights to deny boarding on the high risk basis, my guess is that the denial really occurred because he was told the substance was pot when it wasn't. And now, in the wake of the error, RC is digging their heels in to try to cover their a** in the court of public opinion. They continue to claim it tested positive and was confiscated. By golly that's their story and their sticking to it! :rolleyes:

[mesci14]

For all of you that are now willing to hang Hager out to dry then I hope you don't get caught smuggling alcohol on board (which by the way IS NOT supposed to be allowed whereas at this time tobacco is) because shouldn't you be tossed rather than just dumping the alcohol or confiscating the alcohol? Should they have concealed what could be mistaken as a illegal substance, no; should they have their time wasted while it is investigated, yes; should RCCL confiscate the can and give back the tobacco (or if they want keep the legal substance of tobacco), yes; should the couple be deemed high risk and denied boarding, no (not unless they are going to do the same to all alcohol and electrical strip smugglers---which I don't believe they do).

[nellydean]

WOW!! Try Google, he's a rather important historical figure.;)

 

Not to me, I'm English, why would I know anything about an American civil rights lawyer from way back when? You should have seen where I live and not assumed I'd know, but you did, just like you assumed this couple were going to smuggle illegal substances in future cruises.

[johneeo]

Bottom line....a cruise ship (staff) can do just about anything they want.

If they don't want you on their ship...you're not going and there is nothing much you can do about it but kick and fuss...

 

Inaccurate.

 

I see plenty being done.

 

Beside the financial costs and lost revenue, RCI has portrayed themselves on a par with circus clowns.

[maxsales]

Wondering if travel insurance would pay.

 

No chance.

[cruiseMI82]

"For all of you that are now willing to hang Hager out to dry then I hope you don't get caught smuggling alcohol on board"

 

I don't smuggle alcohol on board. It's stupid, it's not that expensive on board and it says right on your info that you can be kicked off for that kind of thing. Hagar's husband was kicked off for good reason, even if for pure idiocy alone.

 

I also don't feel bad for Hagar anymore after how she came here with half a sob story and tried to use us all against RCI.

[Jumbiecruiser]

Just reading this thread it's easy to point out the tree hugging liberals and smugglers. ;)

[mesci14]

"For all of you that are now willing to hang Hager out to dry then I hope you don't get caught smuggling alcohol on board"

 

I don't smuggle alcohol on board. It's stupid, it's not that expensive on board and it says right on your info that you can be kicked off for that kind of thing. Hagar's husband was kicked off for good reason, even if for pure idiocy alone.

 

I also don't feel bad for Hagar anymore after how she came here with half a sob story and tried to use us all against RCI.

 

Next time you choose to quote me please use the whole quote as it provides all of my thinking on the subject ( I mentioned that alcohol is listed as not allowed---I however find it to be expensive) It was not half of a sob story, but they did leave out one detail about it being hidden although if you reread the entire other thread you will see that many realized it had been concealed. Again I have seen women hide sanitary items in some odd places or people who like to have cash on hand- a wad of cash--all of which are legal items should they be denied boarding because they have a hidden compartment??? My point was what they had was normally allowed on board unlike alcohol and electrical cords which probably were also concealed in some manner, but these items are just confiscated and the patron is allowed to board. It should have been treated no differently then these situations.

[bigeagle12]

There are no other field tests. I'm quite sure a competent lab could prove exactly what it was.

 

So, I guess the Captain should have held the ship for 3 or 4 days while they sent those tests to an outside lab :rolleyes:

[mesci14]

For the record, I don't smuggle anything on board. If it says not to bring it, I don't. Granted I have only cruised once before. That said I have read threads upon threads about people who smuggle alcohol or who are upset that their electrical cord/coffee pot have been confiscated.

[temple1]

Just reading this thread it's easy to point out the tree hugging liberals and smugglers. ;)

 

:confused::confused::confused:

 

And where do the true libertarians fit into your scenario?

 

My thoughts - and like all the previous 999 responses - JMHO, if the guy had no ulterior motive in hiding the tobacco in the hairspray can other than he thought it looked a lot like illegal substances, and as his wife claims he is just an occaisional smoker, what would a reasonable and rational person do? Would you hide it in a container and stash it in your dive gear or would you say, nah, not worth the effort and just bring the regular packaged stuff andput it in your carryon???

 

Hmmmm I wonder, I wonder?

 

As for the difference in statements from RCCL - I can understand some details getting fudged going up the chain of command. If the substance was turned over to the Port police then it might have been reported to higher ups as destroyed or some similar words.

[EVALUATOR]

Did RCI post their new clothing policy that was supposed to take effect May 1st.

 

Since they cannot confirm the tuxes and formal gowns with designer labels are authentic, and not counterfeit, No formal clothes are going to be allowed on board. Those wishing to comply with the mandatory dress code for the MDR on formal nights can rent tuxes or purchase formal gowns on board.

 

Those caught smuggling formal clothes on board will be forced, by the Captain, to walk the plank.:eek::D:rolleyes::):confused::cool:

 

Heck one of those smileys had to fit.

[odettemcf]

Things I've learnt:

1. That RCI Policy is NOT the same as the US law, they cannot be used interchangeably.

2. That any cruiser can violate RCI Policy WITHOUT doing anything illegal.

3. That ultimately the Master of the ship makes the final decisions, although he is not God!

4. That Robert (with or without the knowledge of Mary) purposefully concealed the substance; this was omitted from the intial story.

5. That the police test of the ‘concealed substance’ proved negative for THC.

6. The police field test only proved what the substance WAS NOT and not definitively what it IS. (right Aquahound?:D)

7. That RCI (allegedly) say the substance WAS illegal and that is was disposed of.

8. That the PC spokeswoman (allegedly) says that the substance WAS NOT illegal and was given back to ‘Mary & Robert’.

9. That a police report (allegedly) says that the substance WAS NOT illegal and was given back to ‘Mary & Robert’.

10. I have learnt quite a bit about Hookah and charcoal pipes and water bongs and fruit flavoured tobacco....JUST SAY NO kids...:eek:

11. I have also learnt that puffins can be skewered into kabobs!!! And about some ‘famous’ American lawyer guy...can’t remember his name:p

 

For me the issue is now about RCI and how they define ‘High Risk’, surely this definition will be challenged as to whether policy was breached or applied correctly in this instance.

 

Also if this does get to court, how RCI will defend themselves against a police report which may say the total opposite... if it gets in front of Judge Judy, RCI dont stand a chance against an official police report:D

 

Also (as was mentioned in the original thread) the OP posted that the decision to deny re-boarding may have been made at the point the ‘suspicious narcotics’ call was made to the police. If this is the case, can the Captain deem a cruiser ‘High Risk’ and therefore in breach of policy before any investigations? OR did the Captain receive a miscommunication (or heard the communication wrongly) which led to his decision to deny boarding?

I doubt we will really ever know the details, except for the police report, which someone said may be a matter of public record.

[nellydean]

From the cruise critic news article:

 

'Port officials agree that the contraband was tobacco and not an illegal substance. Port Canaveral spokeswoman Rosalind Harvey tells Cruise Critic that the test, which she also says was witnessed by officers, came up negative. "What appeared to be a typical baggy of cannabis and a chamber-type pipe turned out to be Hookah herb," explained Harvey in an e-mail. "A chemical test was conducted on the herb, which showed negative for THC (tetrahydrocannabinol)."

 

A police incident report acquired by Cruise Critic corroborates Harvey's comments.

 

Harvey says that cruise line security actually returned the items to Robert following the negative test, contradicting RCI's claims that they were destroyed.'

 

That's two lies exposed right there: RCI claimed it tested positive for an illegal substance, and they claimed it had been taken away to be destroyed. The illegal substance issue was shot down by the port authority and the police - both of whom I'd believe over a cruise line on a damage limitation exercise; and, the 'illegal substance' being taken away and destroyed was shot down by PC spokeswoman Rosalind Harvey.

 

So, in a nutshell, this husband stupidly concealed tobacco because he thought it might arouse suspicion, which it did but, after the tests prove it to be a legal substance, and they offer to throw it away so they can continue their cruise, he and his wife are still denied boarding. Not only that, they are being refused reimbursement of an expensive cruise, had their anniversary completely ruined and, for good measure, have been slandered by RCI as being drugs smugglers.

 

I think they have a very good case to sue.

[tikimon]

First of all, RCI will have to refund the cruise fare, they don't have a leg to stand on if this would go to court ( Which it never will ).

 

To put a passenger through all of this stress and refuse to allow them to reboard the ship due to the fact that they had tobacco ( as tested as such ) packed in a container with a false bottom ( which doesen't matter as there was nothing illegal concelled ) is ridiculious. You can not condem and falsely accuse someone for something that they may or may not do in the future.

How does RCI or you for that matter think you know what this couple is going to do in the future? Just plain STUPID I tell ya!

 

RCI security does a test which ( they RCI ) say the tobacco tested positive and calls the police.

Police come and test 3 different time and surpise all 3 times it test negative.

 

RCI makes a statment that the tobacco was taken and destroyed ( again they are wrong ) and a another lie, it was returned to the owner.

 

RCI makes the statment that their Conduct Policy was broken, Where?

By the way one packs their suitcase is breaking a conduct policy? I mean are you for real?

 

Passengers on every cruise that leaves every week try to smuggle alcohol onto the ships and when caught, all is done is it is confiscated and no demand that the Conduct Policy was broken is placed upon the offender and they are removed from the ship.

 

With all the documentaion all over the internet about the smuggled alcohol and no one is ever removed from the ship and denied reboarding, then RCI has no chance, they have to refund the cruise fare.

 

No laws or Conduct Policies were broken here people, it is a simple case.

These two peo[ple were cheated out of their vacation. That's the fact, and it doesn't matter if you or I like it.

 

The only thing I am reading here from most of you that have posted is you are concerned with the way the tobacco was packed.

Was it a stupid way to pack it? Yes.

But the way it was packed has no bearing on the situation, it is not illegal to pack a false bottom can in a dive bag or suitcase.

[nellydean]

First of all, RCI will have to refund the cruise fare, they don't have a leg to stand on if this would go to court ( Which it never will ).

 

To put a passenger through all of this stress and refuse to allow them to reboard the ship due to the fact that they had tobacco ( as tested as such ) packed in a container with a false bottom ( which doesen't matter as there was nothing illegal concelled ) is ridiculious. You can not condem and falsely accuse someone for something that they may or may not do in the future.

How does RCI or you for that matter think you know what this couple is going to do in the future? Just plain STUPID I tell ya!

 

RCI security does a test which ( they RCI ) say the tobacco tested positive and calls the police.

Police come and test 3 different time and surpise all 3 times it test negative.

 

RCI makes a statment that the tobacco was taken and destroyed ( again they are wrong ) and a another lie, it was returned to the owner.

 

RCI makes the statment that their Conduct Policy was broken, Where?

By the way one packs their suitcase is breaking a conduct policy? I mean are you for real?

 

Passengers on every cruise that leaves every week try to smuggle alcohol onto the ships and when caught, all is done is it is confiscated and no demand that the Conduct Policy was broken is placed upon the offender and they are removed from the ship.

 

With all the documentaion all over the internet about the smuggled alcohol and no one is ever removed from the ship and denied reboarding, then RCI has no chance, they have to refund the cruise fare.

 

No laws or Conduct Policies were broken here people, it is a simple case.

These two peo[ple were cheated out of their vacation. That's the fact, and it doesn't matter if you or I like it.

 

The only thing I am reading here from most of you that have posted is you are concerned with the way the tobacco was packed.

Was it a stupid way to pack it? Yes.

But the way it was packed has no bearing on the situation, it is not illegal to pack a false bottom can in a dive bag or suitcase.

 

That is far too sensible a post to be considered worthy of consideration by a lot of people, who are just desperate to see RCI exonerated of any blame.

 

I love Royal Caribbean, and am planning on sailing on one of her ships again this year, but this really has done nothing for their PR and, in a year when cruise lines have been suffering after the tragedy of the Costa Concordia and other incidents at sea, and the general recession, the best thing they could do is hold their hands up, admit they made a mistake and give full reimbursement to this couple, along with another cruise.

 

If this gets to court, RCI's name will be dragged through the mud.

[bigeagle12]

Was it for him to smoke on his balcony? That would be pretty stupid.

 

Do you cruise in balcony cabins? I have smelled it on 2 of my 8 cruises :eek:

[johneeo]

I don't smuggle alcohol on board. It's stupid, it's not that expensive on board and it says right on your info that you can be kicked off for that kind of thing. Hagar's husband was kicked off for good reason, even if for pure idiocy alone.

 

 

I do not believe that "idiocy" is grounds for being kicked off a ship.

[johneeo]

 

If this gets to court, RCI's name will be dragged through the mud.

 

That ship has sailed.

[LovesCruising]

Ok .. then please explain to me why he (who according to his wife is not a smoker) went out and bought a fake can of hairspray to hide "legal" tobacco in???

 

I have not read all of the posts on this thread - too many - however, if my husband did this I would be FURIOUS with HIM! I don't know how Royal Caribbean should settle this but I do know the husband did a dumb thing. I assume the OP (wife) has not posted ont his thread.