The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[CruisingMachine]

No surprise that RCCL cheerleaders out in force.

 

But, I think a decent lawyer stands to do very well here. And, I think they've lost business well beyond the two denied boarding.

 

Yes, even a bad lawyer stands to do VERY well here...at least as much as he/she can get out of the couple, because they certainly aren't going to get anything out of RCCL.

 

The captain can deny boarding to ANYONE for just about ANY reason. They signed the contract and agreed to that. They try to "smuggle" a subtance that looked illegal and may or may not have tested positive for being an illegal substance, accompanied by a pipe that would be typically used to smoke the illegal substance but not the legal subtance.

 

Assuming for a moment that it was just tobacco, such a smuggling tactic is used by those for "dry runs". Customs officials know this. The captain knows this. The captain does not have the time to conduct a trial. He has to make a decision based upon these facts. That's why he's the captain. He errs (if you want to call it that) on the side of safety and determines that their conduct is highly suspicious (at least) and therefore deems them "high risk". They are denied boarding.

 

Case closed. Game over. Don't forget to tip your servers.

 

And if you think cruisers want security to "lighten up" and allow more "questionable" people to board and cruise with them, you better guess again.

[Debde]

Did RCI win? The got to keep the cruise fare, but they would have had that even in they were allowed back on the ship. By not allowing them to board, then the cut off a possible income stream from the purchases they would have made on board.

 

So, they did not win financially in the short run, and the (bad?) publicity from this incident may cost them passengers in the future.

 

As BecciBoo said-I'm bored with this too but I'd like to think Royal did not win and possibly once a good lawyer gets a hold of this.:confused:

 

Oh-and we have a hookah bar right in town here and in many of the surrounding towns. A place where people go to smoke this flavored tobacco. so someone denied boarding for hookah has me scratching my head-that's all.

[mjldvlks]

OK, I went back and read the story again. RCI says it was tested [by RCI and observed by PC police] and came up positive. The port security person agrees that "the" test was observed by the police but says that it came up negative. It appears that the RCI lady and the port security lady are talking about the same test. RCI also says "'tobacco' was taken by law enforcement to be destroyed." The port security lady says it was returned to OP's DH. It therefore appears to me that the port security lady is calling the RCI lady a liar. The port security lady appears to be the closest thing we have to a neutral party. In the grand scheme of who to believe, I'm just sayin'.

[cruisethesea]

who cares where they hid it- they can put any item thats legal anywhere theyd like in their luggage- its THEIRS! this doesnt mean its illegal. and since it tested neg. for illegal substances, i am amazed that they were turned away..i hide my underwear in my shoes- is that wrong too?

[PH8]

General term "hookah" referrs to a water pipe or bong.

 

The cans of tobacco sold by Halo company are named "Hookah tobacco" and have different flavors, i.e. pino colada, etc. It is loose tobacco supposedly made to smoke in a Hookah or water pipe.

I know all that......

 

Ok,Im done with this discussion...........guess you dont understand my point........but thats ok....:)

[melbur]

I hope they do get a good lawyer and go for it. Whether he hid his legal substance in a baggie, can or his wife's underwear is irrelevant. It is a legal substance.

And all this speculation again about his motives, how do you know?

If people were denied boarding for what they might do, ships would be half empty.

[CruisingMachine]

maybe ship's test was positive if they tested the pipe and found weed residue on it?

 

But the police only tested the tobacco and it was OK?

 

DING! DING! I think we have a winner. And who presented that very scenario on the other thread? Hmmm...

[teajak]

No surprise that RCCL cheerleaders out in force.

 

But, I think a decent lawyer stands to do very well here. And, I think they've lost business well beyond the two denied boarding.

On the other hand maybe they have gained business from people that are glad they follow the rules and weed out high risk passengers. This is for the people that want 2 sides to every story, and truth, something the wife didn't consider.If she didn't want to tell the truth she shouldn't have started this mess.:eek:

[bajathree]

You know I will bet you that most all here would have a different opinion if this was someone trying out security with legal substances for a possible terror plot;)

[Debde]

I hope they do get a good lawyer and go for it. Whether he hid his legal substance in a baggie, can or his wife's underwear is irrelevant. It is a legal substance.

And all this speculation again about his motives, how do you know?

If people were denied boarding for what they might do, ships would be half empty.

 

Ding Ding-I think we have another winner!!!:)

[Donald2313]

Rci should have apologized to the couple and sent them on the cruise. Nothing illegal....and they were wrong to make this more than it was. Disappointing.

[ryano]

I still feel sorry for her :( Flame me if you wish. I dont CARE!

 

I was on this sailing and she was in my roll call thread. She seemed very nice and sweet and was excited for months only to be taken off the ship a few hours after boarding........I cant even IMAGINE the nightmare and each and everyone here would be upset!

 

The tobacco was deemed not illegal. While the method of smuggling it on board was questionable for sure, what about people that go through all kinds of measures including putting alchol in rumrunners so they dont show up on xray? :rolleyes: IMHO, THIS IS NO DIFFERENT!

 

Again, flame away. I could not care less.

 

I hope she gets ALL of her money back.

[mjldvlks]

. . .accompanied by a pipe that would be typically used to smoke the illegal substance but not the legal subtance. . .

 

This stuff is intended to be smoked in hookahs. If you go to the manufacturer's website, there are instructions on how to pack your hookah. This stuff is apparently fairly fine grained so you have to be careful to prevent the tobacco from getting past the burn chamber. I don't smoke any substance of any kind so I don't know. But perhaps this stuff is not conducive to ordinary pipes. I am just suggesting that the type of pipe involved may be explainable. No one has said residue was found in the pipe.

 

Hookah bars were fairly popular here recently -- how about other places?

[bazarr2]

My problem with this is why hide it? It would have been safer and believable to the cruiseline if he would have just left it in it's original tin if he had nothing to hide.

This is how they describe Hookah Tobacco:

Hookah tobacco[1] is a San 'Shyuum stimulant that is smoked via water pipe.

Although the drug allows San 'Shyuum extra focus and mental acuity for a short duration, later reactions to the drug can include an extreme headache. A quick-acting herbal tea is available to deal with the side-effects.

Because it is not native to Earth, it is impossible that Hookah is actually related to true Earth Tobacco. Instead, it is likely just a substance with similar qualities

This is the tin, wouldn't you have left it in there if it was legal?

Halo Hookah

[ryano]

I hope they do get a good lawyer and go for it. Whether he hid his legal substance in a baggie, can or his wife's underwear is irrelevant. It is a legal substance.

And all this speculation again about his motives, how do you know?

If people were denied boarding for what they might do, ships would be half empty.

 

I agree 100 percent! This is NO different than smuggling alcohol on in rumrunners!!!!!!!! Those people arent kicked off the ship :confused:

 

Speculation on the motives is nothing more than just that but it doesnt surprise me that RCI cheerleaders are out in full force though.

 

I love RCI just as much as anyone but they can and DO make mistakes! This is a huge one and I for one, hope they have to issue a full refund.

 

 

FWIW, this thread will not make it to 6 pm before being locked down I bet.............Anyone want to wager?

[klingoncruiser]

Wow, has this story grown some legs. Looks like two wrongs do not a cruise make.:rolleyes:

[mjldvlks]

. . . This is NO different than smuggling alcohol on in rumrunners!!!!!!!!. . .

 

Actually it is much different. Rumrunners are specifically against the rules. And yet those passengers are not denied boarding.

[kpgibbs]

I knew there was more to the story.

 

For those of you that feel sorry for them.....why? They were trying to hide something. Now I do agree this isn't much different then Rum Runners. However, I'm sure they were concerned about them trying to smuggle something else from the islands.

 

I promise you, she knew her husband had it. Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for either of them.

[MommaOf3Princesses]

No surprise that RCCL cheerleaders out in force.

 

But, I think a decent lawyer stands to do very well here. And, I think they've lost business well beyond the two denied boarding.

 

You think they have lost business due to this? I highly doubt people serious about taking a cruise...and get a good price on top of that...would avoid RCI just because of this incident.

 

We were on one last week...my hubby had a log of skoal in his carry on, it came up on the scanner, they double checked it (it was still closed and sealed)...we were on our way! Clearly if this situation was as simple and inoccent as the couple is claiming they would have had the same outcome?!?!?!?!

[ryano]

However, I'm sure they were concerned about them trying to smuggle something else from the islands.

.

 

A good attorney will tear that speculation apart. Good luck on that one holding up in court! RCI's atty's would be foolish to even go there IMHO!

[SF BAY]

It seems to me that they were turned away not for bringing something illegal onboard because the story clearly states the product was legal and returned to the passenger,but for violating the conduct policy. Does this mean all people who are sent to the naughty room for hiding liquor should also be dismissed ? After all they also violated the conduct policy . I would sure hate to think RCCL has a double standard.

[ryano]

Actually it is much different. Rumrunners are specifically against the rules. And yet those passengers are not denied boarding.

 

excellent point and one Im sure that will be brought up by their atty in court. IF it even makes it that far.

[endymion6942]

You do realize a lawsuit against RCL will drag out. We won't hear the end of this for a long time.

This assumes RCL doesn't do right thing and make nice and offer a full refund. Good luck with that.

[FLACRUISER99]

For those folks that think there is going be a large jury award if a Lawyer brings a Suit this is from the cruise contract that we all have to agree to.

"THIS AGREEMENT REQUIRES THE USE OF ARBITRATION FOR CERTAIN DISPUTES AND WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY TO RESOLVE THOSE DISPUTES. PLEASE READ SECTION 10 BELOW." Full contract here: https://secure.royalcaribbean.com/online-check-in/printable_contract.do

[pspercy]

So RCI lied when they said it tested negative ?

 

It tested negative so they did not violate Guest Conduct Policy.

 

They should have been allowed to sail.