The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[odettemcf]

Why is it that everyone thinks you have to do something illegal or be arrested to be ordered off the ship or denied boarding:confused:

 

I'm with you, I dont get that either!

[trbeer]

I defended the OP on the other thread but based on the info of the false bottom hiding place I don't have sympathy. Her husband made a stupid decsion and I can understand RCCL being concerned with drugs on the return trip

[johneeo]

..... but if that makes security think you might be testing the waters for a dry run for drug smuggling, they can deny you boarding.

 

Thank you.

 

We have established that security can deny anyone from boarding based upon their presumptions as to what the customer might do at some time in the future.:eek:

 

WOW! Absurd!

[NJcruisenewbie]

I truely don't get that people believe what the op's dh did was just an innocent mistake. If he really was concerned with just getting his "tabbaco" on board but thought it would be a problem he should have simply kept it in the original package and carried it on. I live by the premise that if one has nothing to hide than don't hide it.

[Pushka]

I truely don't get that people believe what the op's dh did was just an innocent mistake.

 

Well I truly don't get that people think its ok to be kicked off a cruise because of what you might do instead of what you have done.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hubofhockey]

I truely don't get that people believe what the op's dh did was just an innocent mistake. If he really was concerned with just getting his "tabbaco" on board but thought it would be a problem he should have simply kept it in the original package and carried it on. I live by the premise that if one has nothing to hide than don't hide it.

 

Well, the allowable substance would have been confiscated. THAT is the problem.

 

RCI should provide a 100% refund. While they may have the right to refuse boarding to those they SUSPECT might be trouble, that might give them them the right to BREAK their end of the cruise contract. However, RCI should not be allowed to enrich themselves from a contract that they have broken. While it may have been too late for RCI to resell that cabin, that is the cost(and a small one at that) for the safety of other passengers. I am not impressed with RCI's handling of this matter.

[EVALUATOR]

Maybe the Husband hid the tobacco because he was afraid the DEA would lock him up and throw away the key...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/college-student-claims-left-cell-five-days-without-153200359.html

 

http://news.yahoo.com/ca-man-left-cell-4-days-just-tried-081327899.html

[fred20155]

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

 

Exactly right. For one thing, the only one that's guaranteed to make money out of this is the lawyers! And, I am sure we'll never hear the final result, if there is a settlement. We will never know what the true story is.

[hubofhockey]

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

 

Well, if all the passengers want is their money back, their will be no lawyers involved because it is a small claim. All RCI has to do here is refund their purchase paid and the passengers may not make too big of a deal out of this. The passengers posted on this thread and so far have never indicated that they want any kind of huge settlement or a looking to make any kind of financial score out of this. RCI's own greed here is the only thing that will get them into trouble. If they had given the passengers a full refund, it wouldn't have come to this. That Corporate RCI hasn't handled this well and properly instructed its cruise personnel how to deal with a situation like this is beyond stupid.

[Ocean Boy]

Am I the only one who's brain screams out "High risk of what?!" every time someone throws that into the conversation, as if it really means something. Really. There has to be someone else here, who realizes that the phrase "found to be high risk" means nothing if not followed by the word "of" stating something specific. As in an answer to.. the "risk of what?". It's not even a complete thought, and certainly is inadequate as an explanation of anything.

 

As if the answer to the question is any or your, mine, or anyone elses business. It is RCI's ship and RCI's decision. Neither the company, or its captains, have any interest in keeping people from cruising for no reason.

[Ocean Boy]

That's right, forgive me, it was tanelicious and some others. But the comment about indiscretion was also hurtful. I can't tell you what you have all done for my day. Lovely.:(

 

A lot of pages have gone by since I was on the boards last night. You have been around here for a long time and you are a well known poster. There was no reason for anyone to dount what you posted. And if they did have doubt then just don't worry about it. We have all taken our turn over the years having folks jump down our throats. Don't let it get to you.

[Ocean Boy]

Amen Kristi! I agree 100% and think the vast majority of RCI cheerleaders are a little nuts. These people didn't do anything wrong or illegal. Yeash, if everybody that had alcohol in their bag was thrown off and not refunded all hell would break loose, and THOSE are the people violating policy.

 

Does anybody know why RCCL said they can't get a refund because the violated the guest policy? HOW ?????

 

And, of course, you know all the facts, right?

[EVALUATOR]

A lot of pages have gone by since I was on the boards last night. You have been around here for a long time and you are a well known poster. There was no reason for anyone to dount what you posted. And if they did have doubt then just don't worry about it. We have all taken our turn over the years having folks jump down our throats. Don't let it get to you.

 

Well said.

 

I have gone days without being able to sit for getting my butt chewed out here.

 

Some of us would never be upset if someone pointed out a typo.:)

 

As long as it's knot a spelling or grammer error than everything is OK.:D

[AnneRinMD]

As you can see I am fairly new and tend to lurk rather than post but I wanted to share a different view. I am not judging right or wrong or if a refund is due.

 

Having had first hand experience with "adverse" reaction to synthetic THC, I think that there is an area of risk that is being overlooked and given that we really don't know what was in the "tobacco" product I would be concerned about medical risks. Adverse reactions can include loss of consciousness, vomiting, aggressive behavior and rapid heartbeat. Given the volumes of unknown about the product, I would err on the side of not taking the risk.

[Karma5]

I defended the OP on the other thread but based on the info of the false bottom hiding place I don't have sympathy. Her husband made a stupid decsion and I can understand RCCL being concerned with drugs on the return trip

 

I agree.............OP was not all that truthful according to the report from CC. I found her reports to be too "calm" and wonder how much is still not known. In any event, it is what it is and the captain made the correct decision.

[temple1]

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.

 

That reductio ad absurdum doesn't work. The benchmarks are the captain's judgement and experience, the cruise contract, and what the passengers are doing/saying.

 

Illegality is irrelevant here. It's not illegal to vomit or have diarrhea, but if you admit that either has happened to you a day or so before sailing, they can deny you boarding. It's not illegal to have alcohol in your luggage if you're over 21, but if security finds it, they can deny you boarding. It's not illegal to be drunk on board, but if you're really obnoxious about it, they can put you off in the next port. It's not illegal for you to be the parent of a drunk underage teenager, but they can put you off in the next port along with him. It's not illegal to hide a pipe and a smoking product in a hidden compartment of a fake can of hairspray, but if that makes security think you might be testing the waters for a dry run for drug smuggling, they can deny you boarding.

 

 

Glancing through the posts, IMHO, I think ya'll sum it up pretty well. What many of the posters who are expressing the opinion that RCCL is kicking every other passenger off their ships for bogus reasons; there is nothing to be gained for the Captain to kick off passengers.

 

Considering the circumstances - and REALITY CHECK posters - this was all happening at a very busy time for the Captain and all involved. I do not think they were going to delay sailing for 2 passengers with, in their eyes, questionable motives.

[The_Big_M]

Well I truly don't get that people think its ok to be kicked off a cruise because of what you might do instead of what you have done.

 

Clearly in this case, things "were done" by the passengers that brought them to the Captain's attention.

[CruisingMachine]

This doesn't address my other question...why did RCI say the substance was disposed of while PC Police said otherwise?

 

Read a little closer. In case it wasn't already pointed out, the article doesn't say RCI said they destroyed it or know that it was destroyed. The article says RCI gave it to authorities to be destroyed. What the authorities did with it after they got it may be (and evidently is) a different story.

[CruisingMachine]

The port spokewoman said that the substance tested negative for THC. She then stated definitively that it was Hookah Herb. I'd be interested to know how she KNOWS it was Hookah Herb, since, as far as I know, there's no test to establish that that is what it was.

 

Exactly. If it's really "Hookah Herb" and the guest knows it looks like pot, why in the world would you do everything possible to make sure everyone thought it was pot by taking it out of its original package, put it in a baggie, conceal the baggie with a pipe in the false bottom of a spray can.

 

All he had to do was leave the "Hookah Herb" sealed in the original package. He could have called RC ahead of time just to confirm that it would allowed on board.

 

But it is clear by now that it wasn't "Hookah Herb", regardless of the the police "report" says. They did NOT prove WHAT it was, only that it didn't contain THC.

[rubrrick]

They give degrees out for Jack Daniels:eek::D:p

 

It's the JD that allows him to cruise with the JD!!:D

Unfortunately, it only allows me to cruise with Ketel One!;)

 

Rick

[mjldvlks]

I went out yesterday evening and missed about 100 posts. I went to bed and missed another 100 or so. Nonetheless it appears little as changed. I still think it is unfair for the cruise line to keep their money unless they can point to a specific violation of the cruie contract. It is not clear to me that they can do that. They claim to have a positive test, but our esteemed law enforcement experts persuade me that that was likely a preliminary test that could have reacted the same way with legal substances so it doesn't really help the cruise line that much. It seems to me that if the cruise line is alleging a violation as the basis to kick them off and keep their money, the cruise line should have to show the violation. Never questioned the right of the captain to kick them off, its the keep their money part that concerns me.

[ryano]

I went out yesterday evening and missed about 100 posts. I went to bed and missed another 100 or so. Nonetheless it appears little as changed. .

 

And if you missed the next 1000 posts I highly doubt little will change either. :o

 

I agree with everything you said. With THAT said though, this is a heated argument with two sides that are not willing to budge one bit so its pointless to continue to beat this dead horse. The bottom line is, none of us here will EVER know the outcome of this saga so why continue to sling mud at each other? I guess some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing. I dont know.

 

At what point does this thread take up too much bandwidth or do other threads that this forum is here for suffer because of this slug fest?

[mgriffin3]

Frankly this entire thread is ridiculous. This couple gave up their "right" to sue when they clicked the button and agreed to the cruise ticket contract. The only thing that could happen in this case is it can go to binding arbitration.

 

There are probably thousands of completely "legal" things that people can and do do to get denied boarding. I wouldn't be allowed to stand in the line and talk about my bomb making hobby, I wouldn't be allowed to carry on diesel fuel and fertilizer, I would be allowed to yell fire in the cruise terminal. The fact is, these people do not have a "right" to a refund. Should they get one, probably in my opinion.

[retiredgram]

I truely don't get that people believe what the op's dh did was just an innocent mistake. If he really was concerned with just getting his "tabbaco" on board but thought it would be a problem he should have simply kept it in the original package and carried it on. I live by the premise that if one has nothing to hide than don't hide it.

Ditto

[CruisingMachine]

Only the very first page of entries on the day it was posted. I saw her original thread and I know she left out how they packaged the hookah herb/tobacco. It's irrelevant to me, as I've previously stated.

 

I know people keep coming back to that, and I even understand why, however I don't agree with judging her entire premise that they were wronged based on that one piece of info. The substance was proven to be legal while the ship was still docked, with multiple witnesses, based on the direct quotes from the PA. That's really all that matters to me. I don't think someone should be judged, or kicked off the ship, for bad decisions. We'd all have been kicked off at some point, I'd imagine, if that were held as absolute truth. It's easy to call someone else an idiot and ugly names and forget that you, and I've, done stupid things, too. I have no doubt I'll be imperfect again at some point...today. ;)

 

However, making a bad decision isn't the same as breaking the contract or the law. Once that substance was proven to be legal and returned to the passengers, where they packaged that substance was irrelevant in all ways to me.

 

You continue to ignore the fact that when RC tested the product it came back POSITIVE. They then gave it to the authorities to be destroyed who instead decided to test it exclusively for TCH. It came back negative. It's entirely possible that BOTH are true.

 

But let's assume for the moment that it was just harmless tobacco. It certainly DOES matter how it was packed. It matters to security, whether you care or not (thank God you aren't in charge of security or the captain of a ship). It was a classic "test run" of port security to bring illegal drugs back on board from a port of call. They see it all the time. False bottom can. Dive bag. Contents resembling the illegal substance.

 

It's as if the guest read a manual on how to conduct a "test run" of security. If caught, he faces no criminal charges since nothing illegal (supposedly) was found. He probably didn't count on losing his vacation, though. Too bad, so sad.

 

Port security and the captain are all too familiar with such shenanigans. Again, RC said their test showed POSITIVE for prohibited subtances. Even if it didn't, the evidence is OVERWHELMING that the guest was using his concealment for a "test run" to bring prohibited substances back on board. In either case, the captain is well within his rights and common sense to deny them boarding. In either case, RC is well within their rights to send them home without a refund. In either case, RC is well within their rights to say "and don't come back".

 

You would have to be a complete naive fool to think the guest did nothing wrong, meant no harm, was innocent of anything but bad judment, etc. I suppose you would also feel the same about someone who walks into a convenience store with a ski mask on and a gun drawn. Gee, until they point it in the cashier's face and demand money, they really haven't done anything wrong have they?