The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[Edd]

I do realize that the term "smuggle" is a stretch.. but, I guess in all reality, he was trying to smuggle his legal tobacco...

[Edd]

I have to agree with you..!!! but... everyone does like a scandal...

[bigeagle12]

Which I think is more the crux of the issue. Plus the fact we still don't know the whole story - as some surmised last time there was more to it, being the fact that the tobacco was hidden, there could still be more like other evasiveness, deception or lying.

 

As for the posters saying the only issue is that it's legal so RCL are in the wrong, plastic handguns are also legal, but you can't wave one around in a bank without consequences as well. The way it was being carried on board also has a bearing on the situation.

 

You hit the nail on the head. We teach our children there are consequences for their actions. Well guess what there are consequences for 42 year olds that do stupid things :eek:

[Charles4515]

So maybe the guy was misguided in his paranoia and made an awkward decision to put his legal tobacco in a hidden compartment of a faux hairspray can.

So what?!?!?

This is America – last time I checked, individuality and poor judgment wasn’t outlawed.

Maybe in your world, he made a stupid decision. Maybe in his world, he did what he thought was the most prudent thing to do at the time ---- whether you like it or not that is his right.

The bottom line is that regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his thought process or whether you question his future intentions, as far as we know he didn’t do anything illegal.

Unless they can prove otherwise, RCI needs to give this family their money back.

 

When you make a stupid decision there may be consequences. Even in America. Legal or illegal has nothing to do with it.

 

Like the Secret Service agents who were doing nothing illegal.

 

RCI made a judgement call that he was a risk because of his actions. I think it was a valid call.

 

As far as the money. I don't care if they do or don't give it back. They might want to give it back to end the drama. While it likely means a lot to the family, the amount is peanuts to RCI.

[Edd]

Realistically....tobacco, legal or illegal, may have been only one of the factors that determined the boot of the passengers. By his own admission, the guy made reference to the captain saying that he was "high risk".... What could cause the captain to say that...?? We will never know... The captain has several thousand other passengers to think about. If he was high risk, would you want him in the cabin next to you, or laying out by the pool across from you...??

 

So, now I am wondering, should RC even think about refunding their money..?? IF they are quilty of being a threat and RC was justified in kicking them off - why should RC bear the burden of losing the money?

 

None of this matters anyway. None of this is really any of my or anyone else's business - it's between the smugglers and RC...

[tanelicus]

Look, I emailed Mr. Fain, his assistant called me to reassure us. He asked if I had seen the news item on Cruise Critic and I said I had. He said he appreciated our patronage and happy we were RCCL cruisers. I asked about the incident and he said what I reported. I just thought you'd all want to know what he said. He wouldn't go into much detail but he did say exactly what I posted. I didn't have to tell anyone. And how is my sharing my personal phone call indiscretionary? He just basically confirmed what the article on Cruise Critic said anyway. You people kill me.:rolleyes: There is just no winning with you people. If you want to call me a lier Langley, go ahead, you and tanelicious should both be ashamed of your slander. Why would I make up something like this? For that matter, why do I even care what you think....I should have my head examined for even sharing this with you. Here's a photo of my phone. I guess I manufactured that too, aurelius180 already told you its valid and I posted here just after the call as you can see the time stamp:

 

 

 

So much for the friendly fellow cruisers here on CC. I am not the guilty party here, I didn't smuggle anything, didn't lie about anything, just voiced my concern over this incident and yet you and others have come on here and slandered me with a vehemence. Have a wonderful day.

 

I think you may have misunderstood me, and I was in no way slandering you. What I was questioning was the veracity of Mr. Fain's comments to you, who I am now presuming works for RCI in some capacity.

 

I was saying that I don't believe Mr. Fain. I don't believe that there is a better presumptive test.

 

Now I would believe it if they took the items and sent them for further testing.

 

I think Mr. Fain is spinning. If I am calling out anybody, maybe its Mr. Fain and not you. However questioning his spin is in my opinion fair game.

[DAllenTCY]

This incident will never go to trial. It will be settled out of court and the OP will never get to say another word....whether they win or loose....because that is part of a settlement.

I'll bet that their lawyer will make more than they do out of this situation.

We can talk about it for another month, but we will never have any closure.

David

[rubrrick]

I'm getting ready to tuck the kiddos in, but I genuinely hope this gets resolved and all facts come out. Otherwise, I'm not comfortable at all with passengers being kicked off a ship with what the PA is calling a totally legal substance. I think it's sticky and just not OK, regardless of how she packed or otherwise.

 

If it comes out that RCI has info we don't know, I'd feel better...if not, I think they should get a full refund and compensation for all expenses incurred if this really was just hookah herb/tobacco/etc...

 

Hopefully, we'll get solid facts in the coming weeks. Goodnight, all... ;)

 

 

Kristi.....I have enjoyed reading your posts here.......even tho you spout the Whales Tale......and speaking of tales, there are none better than what Carnival had when they first started. Have you ever heard about the first cruise........that ran aground.......before getting out of the harbor?

 

Cruising has grown up, since then, and now, we find ourselves in one couple, that most don't know......and there is more slinging than when the Carnivale went aground.........and Mr. Arison was livid.......but, then he was not aboard. His son, Mickey, is now the CEO, and has come out of his coma of whatever he was doing back then.........to command a very good group of cruise lines.

 

Of late, he has his hands full, of a captain sinking a ship, a couple of fires, and then we come to Royal Caribbbean.......run by RCCL.

 

Mickey Arison Runs CCL, and Richard Fain Runs RCCL. Both are holding companies.

 

That being said.......both oversee the companies that make up both of the conglomerates.

 

All of that filters down to the cruise lines under those umbrellas.

 

Now, that we are getting down to the cruise lines........Royal Caribbean, and the captain of the Freedom of the Seas.........Tor Olsen.....an old timer with Royal Caribbean........who, IMHO.....wants nothing more than to accomodate every passenger, had a very hard decision to make.

 

And weighing his evidence.........he decided that the passengers that all of us are talking about..........did not warrant re boarding......due to what he felt was "not in the rules" as put forth to him.

 

What comes of this case, is anyones guess!:)

 

Rick

[Pushka]

It just amazes me that people really think so little of our personal freedoms that they side with RCCL on this one. These people did NOTHING illegal.

They packed a LEGAL substance in a LEGAL container.

IT WASNT POT. IT WAS A LEGAL SUBSTANCE.

I hope RCCL has to fork over a huge amount of money for this one.

This is just another example of how brainwashed people are these days...that we think it is okay to frisk young children with cerebral palsy...or senior citizens with Depends on....or deny boarding to an innocent couple who packed a legal substance in a legal container.

If you agree with RCCL that they should have been denied the cruise they had paid for, then I feel sorry for you. And so would the great men who founded our country and gave their lives to give us our freedom.

 

As an Australian, (and in my Uni studies of the History of the USA and a recent visit to Boston) I have always been more than a little in awe of the Freedom statement that is inherent in USA culture and history.

 

I have a different opinion about the right to carry arms, but that is another issue.

 

However, where did it come from that a couple can be refused boarding a ship when there is no hard evidence that they DID anything illegal.

 

It's more than a little sad actually.

 

(PS, the Police report DOES say that "item found was not narcotics....and not a police matter)

 

I am quite disappointed that people can get kicked off a cruise line when there is no hard evidence that this couple DID anything illegal When did that happen?

 

One word comes to mind Marci...."addiction".

 

Being addicted to something isn't a crime when it comes to smoking cigarettes or pipes

 

FALSE - states it was not marijauna :rolleyes:

 

Also says nothing about 3 tests :rolleyes:

 

Also does not state the disposition of the "substance" .. returned or destroyed.

[yogimax]

Does anyone really have anything NEW to add?

[BeagleOne]

For the third or fourth, and last time, there is a difference between criminal law and contract law. You don't have to do something illegal to be barred from sailing or to be tossed off in a port.

 

I'm not sure how else to say it so that people understand. It's not a complicated idea.

[tanelicus]

As an Australian, (and in my Uni studies of the History of the USA and a recent visit to Boston) I have always been more than a little in awe of the Freedom statement that is inherent in USA culture and history.

 

I have a different opinion about the right to carry arms, but that is another issue.

 

However, where did it come from that a couple can be refused boarding a ship when there is no hard evidence that they DID anything illegal.

 

It's more than a little sad actually.

 

(PS, the Police report DOES say that "item found was not narcotics....and not a police matter)

 

I am quite disappointed that people can get kicked off a cruise line when there is no hard evidence that this couple DID anything illegal When did that happen?

 

 

 

Being addicted to something isn't a crime when it comes to smoking cigarettes or pipes

 

It doesn't matter whether its illegal or not. RCI as a private company and can refuse people admittance with almost no recourse or question. I have said over and over that this is a contract issue. Whether RCI was justified under their contract and in equity for refusing these people under these circumstances.

 

If RCI is smart, they would just refund their cruise fare and be done with it. I don't think these people are entitled to anything more than their money back by the way.

 

I understand why RCI did what they did. I do find it reasonable. However, these people did not get to enjoy their cruise, and they didn't do anything illegal.

[Pushka]

A few corrections:

 

1. It is not a police report, just an incident report supposedly written by the dispatcher who was not present, as a log to highlight the events. So, not documented by the actual officers that were at the port.

2. Item was not found not to be a narcotic .. it was found not to be THC only .. tests could not rule out other illegal substances.

 

It says on the Incident report, which was advised by attending Officer Scarlett to the despatcher that "the item found was not narcotics".

 

If there was any suggestion that the item was narcotics, then why didn't officer Scarlett seize them and test them and why is it written on there that "not a Police matter".

 

This is not the dispatcher filling in some form on their own; it was reported to them by the attending officer and as such it becomes a document for Police records.

 

So, where did this couple break their contract with RCL?

[mechcc]

Does anyone really have anything NEW to add?

 

Not me but it's been informative and entertaining.

[rubrrick]

I have over 2+ million air miles .. and rarely ever have the original bottle .. unless I have a sinus infection and just got antibiotics. Have never had an issue.

 

 

Boy.......are you a short timer! Miles that is!!:D

 

But you probably are not as old as I am........I'm getting close to dirt!

 

 

Rick

[rubrrick]

Well, it looks like RCI is, at least for now, not saying anything further. Which is probably wise since it appears that the couple have contacted a lawyer.

 

I don't see anywhere where RCI started to destroy it and then changed their minds. All I see is the quotation about law enforcement taking it to destroy it.

 

As for controlled substances and narcotics...all controlled substances are not narcotics, but so far as I know all narcotics are controlled substances. In the U.S., anyway, I have no knowledge of how other countries classify things.

 

Generally, controlled substances are drugs with potential for abuse/addiction, while narcotics are drugs which are primarily used for pain relief, but can also cause sedation, respiratory and/or central nervous system depression, and addiction. Opium is the "original" narcotic. Morphine is a narcotic which is also a controlled substance. Marijuana is a controlled substance which is not a narcotic.

 

It's illegal to possess a controlled substance unless you have a DEA license, which usually requires some kind of medical degree...MD, DVM, etc....OR if you have a prescription from someone who legitimately possesses such a license, OR if you are a hospital/pharmacy/clinic dispensing legitimate prescriptions.

 

Some controlled substances, like LSD, marijuana, and heroin, have high potential for abuse and, according to the feds, no accepted medical use, and so it is illegal to possess most of them no matter what. Those are Schedule I drugs. There are five Schedules in descending order of abuse potential.

 

States can have drugs on their controlled substances list that are not federally controlled. Tramadol, a commonly-used analgesic, is controlled in some states, but is not yet federally-controlled. Euthanasia solution (usually pentobarbital) is a controlled substance; veterinarians can of course order it but I'm not sure if physicians can since, while pentobarbital at low doses can be used to control seizures, there's no legal human use for a medication labelled as "euthanasia solution".

 

BTW, don't bother with the Wikipedia entry on narcotics (or anything, really). It says that legally a narcotic is a drug that is totally prohibited, which is not true. :D

 

Anyone with a controlled substance prescription, like for Xanax (alprazolam), should absolutely transport that medication in its original container, with appropriate label. I would also take at least one copy of the prescription.

 

 

Right.......you can only have all of this, with out a prescription, if you are staying in a suite!:D

 

Oh, right!!??:rolleyes:

 

Rick

[rubrrick]

For the third or fourth, and last time, there is a difference between criminal law and contract law. You don't have to do something illegal to be barred from sailing or to be tossed off in a port.

 

I'm not sure how else to say it so that people understand. It's not a complicated idea.

 

 

A big difference.........and if you don't understand it.......take the time to look it up!!

 

Why should I try to explain it to you......for you to call me a liar!

 

Dig it up yourself, and come back and explain it, in common language......to the rest of us.

 

And, yes, I do understand the difference.........as I have been in the courtroom enough..........and no.......I'm not an attorney!

 

Rick

[readytoembark]

When you make a stupid decision there may be consequences. Even in America. Legal or illegal has nothing to do with it.

 

Like the Secret Service agents who were doing nothing illegal.

 

RCI made a judgement call that he was a risk because of his actions. I think it was a valid call.

 

As far as the money. I don't care if they do or don't give it back. They might want to give it back to end the drama. While it likely means a lot to the family, the amount is peanuts to RCI.

 

Actually, whether it was legal or illegal does have a lot to do with it.

I agree with you, when you make a stupid decision, there may be consequences --- regardless of whether you are an individual or whether you are RCI.

RCI made a judgment call that he was a risk. The guy made a judgment call to hide his legal tobacco. In hindsight, they probably were both stupid decisions.

At this point, we don’t really know that he did anything illegal.

What type of America do you want to live in? One governed by societal laws or one governed by nondescript RCI policies?

[wreckem2013]

This thread is comical. People are still hung up on the illegality issue. Illegality does NOT matter. RCI is free to set their polices as they see fit. You dont have to be doing something illegal to violate the cruise contract or be kicked off the ship. It is merely one of the listed reasons and please do not while there is a list of prohibited items/actions, it is not a complete list. RCI is left with a huge amount of discretion.

 

I also love how people keep saying they hope RCI/RCCL has to pay bigs bucks. Guess what they won't be, thats not how contract law works. RCI will only be on the hook for at most the cruise cost and maybe the cost of transportation to the cruise port. Personally if I was RCI/RCCL I would give them their money back and ban them for life from all RCCL lines. Id attach a nice non disclosure agreement to it as well. If they don't agree say see you in binding arbitration.

 

Pursuing this will likely cost the OP and her husband far more than any payout would be. There is not a negligence claim. There is no other tort claim either. And before someone says slander, the OP and her husband shot herself in the foot if they ever wanted to try to go down that road. Even though its doubtful any statements made by RCI would ever have amounted to that.

[tanelicus]

This thread is comical. People are still hung up on the illegality issue. Illegality does NOT matter...

 

I also love how people keep saying they hope RCI/RCCL has to pay bigs bucks. Guess what they won't be, thats not how contract law works. RCI will only be on the hook for at most the cruise cost and maybe the cost of transportation to the cruise port. Personally if I was RCI/RCCL I would give them their money back and ban them for life from all RCCL lines. Id attach a nice non disclosure agreement to it as well. If they don't agree say see you in binding arbitration.

 

Pursuing this will likely cost the OP and her husband far more than any payout would be. There is not a negligence claim. There is no other tort claim either. And before someone says slander, the OP and her husband shot herself in the foot if they ever wanted to try to go down that road. Even though its doubtful any statements made by RCI would ever have amounted to that.

 

I don't see a tort claim anywhere in this scenario. Whats your theory on that?

[Pushka]

This thread is comical. People are still hung up on the illegality issue. Illegality does NOT matter...

 

It HAS to matter. While the Captain does have the ultimate say in who comes or goes, they have to have some kind of "benchmark" on which to base that discretion. A liberal interpretation of what you are suggesting is that if the Captain doesn't like the "look" of you then you are off the boat.

[tanelicus]

A big difference.........and if you don't understand it.......take the time to look it up!!

 

Why should I try to explain it to you......for you to call me a liar!

 

Dig it up yourself, and come back and explain it, in common language......to the rest of us.

 

And, yes, I do understand the difference.........as I have been in the courtroom enough..........and no.......I'm not an attorney!

 

Rick

 

From an outsider, and admittedly not having followed your ongoing discourse, it sound like you actually agree with each other for the most part. Thats it, take it for what its worth.

[wreckem2013]

I don't see a tort claim anywhere in this scenario. Whats your theory on that?

 

I didnt say there was.

 

I said there wasn't. Unless I made a typo. Some people have previously mentioned negligence, some IIRC in one of the threads said something about slander. Neither apply in this case.

 

This is a straight up contract law. And contract law ONLY makes the party whole, and to that extent in this case would be cruise fare and maybe transportation costs to the cruise port.

 

If RCI doesn't back down and the OP and her husband take this to arbitration. Even if they win in arbitration they still lose because its going to cost far more to pursue this case than they would ever get.

[broberts]

As they saying goes "there are always three sides to a story, theirs, ours and the truth". It appears that neither side was entirely forthcomming.

 

I have to admit that RCI reporting an illegal substance and police action seems slanderous to me. It is quite troubling, lying always is.

 

I'm still trying to understand what clause of the passenger contract was violated. Last time I read it there was nothing about doing stupid things that endangered no one.

[tanelicus]

It HAS to matter. While the Captain does have the ultimate say in who comes or goes, they have to have some kind of "benchmark" on which to base that discretion. A liberal interpretation of what you are suggesting is that if the Captain doesn't like the "look" of you then you are off the boat.

 

I think of a certain airline in the US known for cheap fares, who kicked off a customer because of their weight.

 

That lead to a lawsuit for discrimination.

 

However, RCI is claiming a security issue here as the reason for giving this couple the boot. In the end, the security issue I believe will rue the day for them.