The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[Tropical-Stud]

It's highly unlikely this dilemma will end up in court. The defendants and plantiffs will end up spending a lot more with lawyer fees than the $3000 cruise fare. Whether or not RCI is at fault, this issue will probably end with an out-of-court settlement.

[Tropical-Stud]

Now your throwing out cliches? Once they step on the ship, its not a country at all, its the land of Why not!

 

And the land of Rum Runners! :-)

[Aquahound]

I knew there was more to the story.

 

As did I. As did most people. As did anyone with any common sense. And even with this article, the whole story is still not out since RCI's PR department obviously doesn't know what happened from their side.

 

While I still feel the original op was mostly truthful, the fact remains she did intentionally leave out the part about the faux can. What else was left out....whether it be from the ops side or RCIs side?

[richardb]

In light of the most recent stories about terrorist plotting to hijack a cruise ship, we can only expect the cruise lines to take a tougher stand on ANY attempt to smuggle OR conceal items. Even if it only involves concealment of legal items, which could be seen as a trial run to check out how observant the screeners are, they will take a dim view. For that reason, the Captain can deem you a security risk and put you off HIS ship, and it is decision alone.

[jonbgd]

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'.

Rumrunners are specifically against the rules. And yet those passengers are not denied boarding.

Hey Dennis... 2 great points, I totally agree with you

Btw(in response to last thread) Im doing good getting ready for another Radiance cruise

How you been

[RCcruisinfamily]

Interesting....I have one of those cans and have often packed it to keep jewelry in when I travel. I usually don't pack anything in it when I put it in the luggage since I carry my jewelry in my purse or carry-on initially. I wonder if this makes me 'high risk'.....

Judy

 

I really think this could be seen the same way. A smuggling can. . . Who knows what you plan to put in it:eek: Seriously it was stupid. If all was legal and the captain was told there had illegal substances, then make good on it. If it was all legal, they are due a refund. I am assuming that the report she gave is correct that it tested legal substance.

 

Best wishes to the OP, her hubby really did ruin her cruise.

 

Kelly

[mjldvlks]

Hey Dennis... 2 great points, I totally agree with you

Btw(in response to last thread) Im doing good getting ready for another Radiance cruise

How you been

 

Doing fine. Don't have anything scheduled currently, but I think I need to go to sea soon.

 

Have a great cruise on Radiance.

[skippyy]

After original thread, a pretty long read. I'm wondering about how responsible we are (you/me) for our own behavior. At some point can our behavior put us at risk ? of Security and Captains being forced to determine both the legality and intent of our actions ? I doubt if Capt's really relish the idea of having to make decisions of this type. Some better decision making on the part of the OP's would have made this magilla avoidable.

[bazarr2]

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.

RCI said it tested postive:

Royal Caribbean spokeswoman Cynthia Martinez told Cruise Critic that the item tested positive for a controlled substance in a field test conducted by RCI security and witnessed by Port Canaveral police officers. "The 'tobacco' was taken by law enforcement to be destroyed," Martinez wrote in an e-mail, and, per the line's Guest Conduct Policy, which prohibits "illegal substances" and states that the line can remove passengers who violate the policy, Mary and Robert were denied boarding.

[RCcruisinfamily]

According to the contract, people who smuggle alcohol are subject to discipline. That discipline should include refusal to board.

 

Alcohol

 

For purposes of complying with the minimum drinking age requirements, a guest’s age is established upon boarding at the beginning of the cruise vacation. If a guest celebrates their birthday during the cruise vacation, and thereby becomes of age to consume alcohol, the guest may thereafter ask the Guest Services Manager to modify ship’s records to permit their consumption of alcohol during the remainder of the vacation. The guest will be required to appear at Guest Services to present a valid

government-issued form of identification to permit verification of their age. No guest under age 18 may possess or consume alcohol at any time while onboard. No guest under age 21 may possess or consume alcohol at our private destinations. Any guest who goes ashore and consumes alcohol (whether under the supervision of a parent/guardian or not, is responsible for ensuring they consume responsibly and retain their ability to recognize and avoid potentially dangerous situations when they return to the ship. Parents/guardians are reminded they are responsible for the actions of their child/young adult at all times while on a Royal Caribbean International cruise vacation. Guests who violate any alcohol policy, including but not limited to underage drinking; providing alcohol to minors or young adults; possessing, concealing or attempting to conceal alcoholic items in their luggage, when boarding or while onboard; engaging in alcohol drinking games; or failing to consume alcohol responsibly, will be considered for discipline under the provisions of this policy.

 

If RCI feels smuggling legal tobacco is punishable by removing from ship; smuggling legal alcohol should be the same. There is not much difference between the two situations. Both are really stupid.

[beer1234]

I knew I shouldn't shed a tear on a one sided story. This ain't the only thing that will turn up I bet.

[sail2sea]

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?

 

I agree. Not to mention smuggling alcohol is worse because it's actually against cruise line's policy. This couple did something dumb but it was neither wrong nor illegal.

[mjldvlks]

RCI said it tested postive:

Royal Caribbean spokeswoman Cynthia Martinez told Cruise Critic that the item tested positive for a controlled substance in a field test conducted by RCI security and witnessed by Port Canaveral police officers. "The 'tobacco' was taken by law enforcement to be destroyed," Martinez wrote in an e-mail, and, per the line's Guest Conduct Policy, which prohibits "illegal substances" and states that the line can remove passengers who violate the policy, Mary and Robert were denied boarding.

But the article also says:

 

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.

(emphasis added)

 

Both statemenst may be believed by the respective spokespeople, but both cannot be true.

[Cruising89143]

As did I. As did most people. As did anyone with any common sense. And even with this article, the whole story is still not out since RCI's PR department obviously doesn't know what happened from their side.

 

While I still feel the original op was mostly truthful, the fact remains she did intentionally leave out the part about the faux can. What else was left out....whether it be from the ops side or RCIs side?

 

Great post Paul. Just because she was such a nice person on the roll calls doesn't mean that she can do no wrong. The fact that she left out a major part of the story is very telling to me. Also, why go to great lengths to hide something like this? Why not just place in a normal container in a carry on and let it go through security? Personally I'm glad that security was good enough to catch this. It could have been something far more serious.

 

Of course those simple words come into play once again. Common sense..................................... :)

[mjldvlks]

RCI said it tested postive:

Royal Caribbean spokeswoman Cynthia Martinez told Cruise Critic that the item tested positive for a controlled substance in a field test conducted by RCI security and witnessed by Port Canaveral police officers. "The 'tobacco' was taken by law enforcement to be destroyed," Martinez wrote in an e-mail, and, per the line's Guest Conduct Policy, which prohibits "illegal substances" and states that the line can remove passengers who violate the policy, Mary and Robert were denied boarding.

 

But the article also says:

 

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.

(emphasis added)

 

Both statemenst may be believed by the respective spokespeople, but both cannot be true.

[Big_G]

It's highly unlikely this dilemma will end up in court. The defendants and plantiffs will end up spending a lot more with lawyer fees than the $3000 cruise fare. Whether or not RCI is at fault, this issue will probably end with an out-of-court settlement.

 

They'll spend more money than the cruise is worth and get nothing. If the Captain of a vessel feels you're a risk, they have the power to deny boarding. Case closed.

 

For those of you that feel for the OP, she is a liar. She said the substance was in a baggy in the pocket of her husbands dive bag not in a hide-away can. She said that an over aggressive woman security officer found it and was trying to get them booted to get a $50 bonus. As Grand Isle Joe said, "You can't fix stupid." No sympathy here.

 

As for losing business because of this episode, why would anyone not cruise with RCI based on the words of a liar?

[time4u2go]

I've seen a few posts about it, but there's still these 2 questions:

 

Why would RCI say that the substance was illegal even though port security said it was legal?

 

Why would RCI say that the substance was destroyed even though port security says it was returned to the owner?

 

Something still isn't adding up with RCI's depiction of events.

[time4u2go]

As for losing business because of this episode, why would anyone not cruise with RCI based on the words of a liar?

 

When you say liar, are you referring to the people that were booted off, or to RCI, whose account of the events directly opposes the police record? :rolleyes:

[CruisingMachine]

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.

 

You DON'T know. That's the point. The captain had to make a call. No time to conduct a trial. The people act VERY suspiciously by trying to hide a substance that looks like an illegal substance in a false can. If nothing to hide why the hiding?

 

Let's say someone is found hidden with documents in a guest's secret compartment in their luggage. The document happens to be an article on how to make and plant a bomb on a ship. Is it illegal to possess? Probably not. Would a captain let them board? Probably not.

 

Point is, something doesn't have to be illegal to be a reason for denied boarding. It's the captain's call. And trying to be "cute" by stuffing illegal-looking substance with a smoking pipe in a false-bottom hairspray can is beyond stupid. Captain (probably after conferring with customs) had to make a call, and he made it.

[jonbgd]

When you say liar, are you referring to the people that were booted off, or to RCI, whose account of the events directly opposes the police record? :rolleyes:

And we know Cynthia Martinez always tells the truth:rolleyes:

[jmf123]

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?

 

Per OP's reply in her original thread, the pipe was brand new and unused:

 

Originally Posted by BecciBoo:

Will you quick please just tell us what he was planning on smoking it with so we won't have to read that one again!!!!!!!!!!

 

Hager350z's response:

What does it matter it was tobacco that u smoke with a pipe or rolling papers. He had a brand new unused old man Popeye type of pipe that was tested and showed up as unused and given right back from the police officers hands to my husband. BRAND NEW AND UNUSED! The point is we had nothing illegal or listed as prohibited and we have a real police officer that verified all of this and a report to back it up....someone dropped the ball and failed miserably at their job thus denying us our vacation. Put yourself in my shoes and i don't think you would be a happy camper either. My god they did a background check to boot and it was perfect what more proof does a cruise line need to allow you to cruise....DNA? As I said before I feel like we were totally ripped off! A professional company should be more organized than this. You don't gain and retain loyal customers with this type of behavior!

__________________

[Aquahound]

I've seen a few posts about it, but there's still these 2 questions:

 

Why would RCI say that the substance was illegal even though port security said it was legal?

 

Why would RCI say that the substance was destroyed even though port security says it was returned to the owner?

 

Something still isn't adding up with RCI's depiction of events.

 

Lost in translation perhaps? This is just a guess on my part and not to be taken as fact. We all know how the telephone game works and this case would have involved people for which English is their second language. What started out as testing a suspected illegal substance with negative results could very easily have changed to the substance testing as an illegal substance when it reached the Captain's ear, especially when explaining it was found in a hidden compartment.

[Cruising89143]

Per OP's reply in her original thread, the pipe was brand new and unused:

 

__________________

 

She also failed to tell us about where and how the tabacco was stored.

[jonbgd]

What started out as testing a suspected illegal substance with negative results could very easily have changed to the substance testing as an illegal substance, especially when explaining it was found in a hidden compartment.

 

Im thinking that is probably the case

[RCcruisinfamily]

Because they don't check you bags getting off the ship...and then you can conceal anything you wanted in the can on the way back on the ship along with a receipt for a real can that you bought and threw out ......and say you just bought it on the island;)

 

I thought customs did check the luggage and that they brought the drug dogs in to sniff the bags.