Carnival Embarkation Drug Searches

[john91498]

2 hours ago, ledges1 said:

This has left the original post long ago. We have discussed government  conspiracy theories, profiling, etc…. Time for this post to be closed. 

 

No, don't close this thread!!!! It's been a source of great entertainment over the last couple of weeks with folks posting the most ridiculous nonsense. What's even funnier is they actually believe the nonsense and will defend it to the death...😝🤪😅😃

[alex_gregor]

16 hours ago, IndyKid said:

You say that your work experience tells you that weed turns a docile, friendly person into a violent, stoner sociopath?

 

This is not, at all, what the other poster said. Why be disingenuous about something everyone can read for themselves?

[ProgRockCruiser]

17 minutes ago, aborgman said:

Profiling (and discrimination), as long as it isn't based on membership in a protected class - is 100% legal.

 

They couldn't ban someone because of race, religion, gender, disability, national origin, etc.

 

...but thing like political affiliation, hair color, eye color, young age, etc. are not federally protected classes, and anyone can discriminate base on them (they shouldn't, but they legally can).

Well, I suppose so, as written.

 

But: I would gladly argue, if I had red hair, that banning me and all other red-haired people because of said red hair is because of potential Scottish/Irish heritage, and is therefore "national origin" based.  Any physical characteristic that is "associated" with racial or national affiliation is subject to falling afoul of that.  So although being "red headed" isn't a protect class (yet - the UK may be moving towards that), it has many echoes of profiling and discrimination, and I bet there is a shed-load of lawyers who'd love to jump on that bandwagon.

[aborgman]

20 minutes ago, ProgRockCruiser said:

Well, I suppose so, as written.

 

But: I would gladly argue, if I had red hair, that banning me and all other red-haired people because of said red hair is because of potential Scottish/Irish heritage, and is therefore "national origin" based.  Any physical characteristic that is "associated" with racial or national affiliation is subject to falling afoul of that.  So although being "red headed" isn't a protect class (yet - the UK may be moving towards that), it has many echoes of profiling and discrimination, and I bet there is a shed-load of lawyers who'd love to jump on that bandwagon.

 

Those lawyers would lose.  See: people being tossed out of restaurants for supporting a former president.

 

Heck, until a court case a few years back (against Carnival) the cruise lines asserted no US discrimination law applied... But they lost an ADA lawsuit.

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, BlerkOne said:

If you don't have anything, then you have nothing to fear. Randomness only increases the paranoia of the conspiracy theorist smuggler.

When it does not apply to Carnival, do you also see no value in the protection against unlawful search and seizure? In your opinion, should they take that out of the Bill of Rights because, "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear".?

[jimbo5544]

2 hours ago, aborgman said:

 

I have no problem, at all, with Carnival's rules.

 

It's their boat, and it isn't flagged in the US - so they can literally ban anything they choose. They could decide to not allow red haired people, or people with blue eyes if they wanted. They could search everyone, for no reason, before they get on the boat. They can ban coffee makers, curly hair, or crocs.

 

They absolutely have the legal right to do all of those things.

 

But that doesn't mean that someone who is irritated by the procedure has "something to hide", nor does it make attacking the person instead of their argument any less of a logical fallacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which aligns to every cruise ship sans one….

[jimbo5544]

5 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

When it does not apply to Carnival, do you also see no value in the protection against unlawful search and seizure? In your opinion, should they take that out of the Bill of Rights because, "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear".?

The only illegal activity is the drugs, no harm no foul.  The bill of rights😄

[chengkp75]

2 hours ago, aborgman said:

 

Those lawyers would lose.  See: people being tossed out of restaurants for supporting a former president.

 

Heck, until a court case a few years back (against Carnival) the cruise lines asserted no US discrimination law applied... But they lost an ADA lawsuit.

Since you pick on fallacies, let me just point out that it wasn't Carnival's lawsuit, it was NCL (in Specter v NCL), where the SCOTUS affirmed that some, but not all aspects of the ADA apply to foreign flag cruise ships.

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, ProgRockCruiser said:

Well, I suppose so, as written.

 

But: I would gladly argue, if I had red hair, that banning me and all other red-haired people because of said red hair is because of potential Scottish/Irish heritage, and is therefore "national origin" based.  Any physical characteristic that is "associated" with racial or national affiliation is subject to falling afoul of that.  So although being "red headed" isn't a protect class (yet - the UK may be moving towards that), it has many echoes of profiling and discrimination, and I bet there is a shed-load of lawyers who'd love to jump on that bandwagon.

The federal government warned the NYPD about 10 years ago, that a claim about profiling based on "red hair" would fall afoul of federal law, since it can be argued that red heads occur more in England and Ireland (about 13%), than other places in the world (Asia, Africa, South America), so could be argued as discrimination due to ethnic origin.

[aborgman]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

Since you pick on fallacies, let me just point out that it wasn't Carnival's lawsuit, it was NCL (in Specter v NCL), where the SCOTUS affirmed that some, but not all aspects of the ADA apply to foreign flag cruise ships.

 

I'd say it was Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines(2000) that initially applied the ADA to foreign flagged cruise lines, not Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Lines(2005).

 

Spector may have confirmed previous precedent as binding (and actually expanded it) but it wasn't first.

[Elaine5715]

On 11/21/2023 at 7:02 AM, aborgman said:

 

Yes, they do.

 

...but statistically - they don't do it the same amount.

 

 

Yes, they do.  It is the willingness to report without fear of consequences that is different.   

[Oceansaway17]

On 11/20/2023 at 10:35 AM, Jay5 said:

Day 3, probably a port day and pot can be purchased in most Caribbean ports.  Usually the drug search only happens at embarkation.

and last week on Celebration since lines were long, a bunch of us got waved over to the casino elite line and never did get sniffed.  But you are right also. 

[SwordBlazer Cruising]

A cruise ship terminal is a US point of entry, therefore a government/ federal controlled property. Is Cannabis legal on the government level? No, it’s only legal within some states. This is the reason. 

 

[aborgman]

14 hours ago, Elaine5715 said:

Yes, they do.  It is the willingness to report without fear of consequences that is different.   

 

No, they do not.

 

Both show a statistical increase in domestic violence, but the degree of that increase is NOT the same. We have hundreds of peer reviewed studies on this. The numbers are what they are.

[aborgman]

8 hours ago, SwordBlazer Cruising said:

Is Cannabis legal on the government level?

 

 

Yes, cannabis is legal on the federal government level depending on THC content.

 

[DallasGuy75219]

40 minutes ago, aborgman said:

 

Yes, cannabis is legal on the federal government level depending on THC content.

 

The issue is that the measurement of THC content on cannabis product labels isn't regulated, so people can get and have gotten busted when the actual THC content is higher than the labeled content and the federal limit.

[nancy1031]

at my previous job, i was sniffed everytime i entered the building- also had to remove shoes, belts, watches- am used to it-also am used to being patted down as i have both a metal screw and pin in mmy right shoulder- rather be safe then sorry- have nothing to hide and carry my medical cards w/ me explaining the screw and pin-may-be they should have started this years ago....

[Old Fart Cruisers]

52 minutes ago, nancy1031 said:

 

 

52 minutes ago, nancy1031 said:

 

 

52 minutes ago, nancy1031 said:

at my previous job, i was sniffed everytime i entered the building..

Maybe your coworkers just liked the perfume that you wore 🤔 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Old Fart Cruisers

[nancy1031]

nope- just a precaution after 9/11- building had 56 floors- housed several big name law firms and a bank headquarters-just became a way of life for everyone

[hard_eight]

Saw no dogs at the disaster that was the 11/19 Conquest boarding. The free for all must have allowed the drug smugglers to run amok. Smelled pot all over the ship.

[Bill Miller]

You buy's your ticket and in doing so, the contract for travel on a foreign flag vessel.

Behave or Be Gone!

[mz-s]

9 hours ago, hard_eight said:

Saw no dogs at the disaster that was the 11/19 Conquest boarding. The free for all must have allowed the drug smugglers to run amok. Smelled pot all over the ship.

 

Same story on Magic in September - the only place they actually seemed to care about people smoking was the non-smoking casino annex. Everywhere else was fair game. My stateroom smelled like pot when I embarked and there was a burn spot on the spigot where they tamped out the roach.

[IndyKid]

Sounds like Carnival attracts the stoner crowd, another reason to avoid it...

[VentureMan_2000]

1 hour ago, IndyKid said:

Sounds like Carnival attracts the stoner crowd, another reason to avoid it...

And you post on this forum... why ?

[IndyKid]

Just now, VentureMan_2000 said:

And you post on this forum... why ?

Because this thread popped up on my Google feed. I don't have "status" with any particular cruise line, so I look for certain regions I might like to cruise at and then look at individual lines.

 

I've researched several cruise lines, looked at pros and cons for each, compared prices, etc. It appears that Carnival appeals to a younger, rowdier crowd- drunken brawls, weed smoking, etc. are not my cup of tea. I'll leave it for the millennials and Gen-Xers....