Liquor in Room (Smuggling)

[m steve]

I just wonder how many cruisers think the wine/liquor policy is for safety or to allow X to sell more unrestricted drinks. If they wanted to enforce all the rules they would get a lot of abusers pi---- off but it would make others happy, ie. chair hogs, dress in dining room. As for bringing a bottle for the room hurts no one. Anyone having a drink or 2 in the cabin will be drinking at the bars . Having a drink as you leave port in your cabin while dressing correctly for dinner hurts NO ONE and makes the passenger feel good. I'm not going to run to the bar to get a couple of drinks when I'm trying to dress and if I can choose to have 2, should I go to the bar half dressed? Especially on formal nights walking down the hall in my shorts while people are dressed in line to have pictures taken seems really inappropriate. And as far as wine, if they had a decent selection above the Costco list they usually offer we wouldn't bring our own and pay them $15 for the privlege of drinking our chosen wine. And if they carried my favorite rum I might buy a bottle from them.

By the way, does anyone know if the aluminum or plastic caps register on the security scanners. Then I could put a bottle in my jacet interior pocket and walk right on rather than putting it in my bag going thru the scanner?

[Drew B]

You make a good point. But how long is it going to take an alcohol abuser to empty the minibar? How long is it going to take them to empty a few bottles that they may have purchased through X prior to the cruise?

 

 

LOL! Exactly how many bottles do you think smugglers have been bringing on? I think that, even prior to this "new" policy, if somebody tried to bring 20 bottles on with them, they would be stopped! I think it would be every bit as easy for a Havoc causer to get out-of-control drunk on bottles purchased through X as on bottles they brought onboard...

 

 

I fully expect X to confiscate all liquor that any Havoc Causer has in their possesion including that which has been purchased "legally"... Perhaps they would give a refund on unopened bottles of "legal" alcohol?

 

Now, what I expect and what X will do are probably 2 different things.

 

 

 

If there is no policy banning a passenger from bringing their own alcohol aboard how is X going to be able to confiscate it? ie No policy banning it = No leg to stand on when confiscating it.

 

Happy Travels

 

Cindy

 

I don't understand that last paragraph. If they have a policy that liquor will be confiscated from problem drunks, why does it matter where their liquor comes from? You said above that you expect X to confiscate the legally-purchased liquor from a havoc causer. I don't get why that is any more practicable than confiscating smuggled liquor. In EITHER case, you'd have to search the stateroom, as otherwise, the drunk would simply hide their liquor (legal or otherwise) and say it had already been consumed...

[FireCapt9]

If the cruise line had a rule that stated, during sailaway, you could not take photographs with your own camera, but only buy pictures from the ships photographer. How many of you would snap a few pictures on your own?

 

I know the example is a little far fetched, but you get the idea.

 

This is strictly about dollars and cent. Nothing more.

 

I will continue to throw a bottle or two in my checked luggage and allow the staff to carry it on for me.

 

My two cents.

 

e

[cat616]

LOL! Exactly how many bottles do you think smugglers have been bringing on? I think that, even prior to this "new" policy, if somebody tried to bring 20 bottles on with them, they would be stopped! I think it would be every bit as easy for a Havoc causer to get out-of-control drunk on bottles purchased through X as on bottles they brought onboard...

.

 

1) It does not matter how many bottles you smuggled or purchased, you are either a havoc causer or you are not.

 

2) The Policy is not new it has just been updated.

 

I don't understand that last paragraph. If they have a policy that liquor will be confiscated from problem drunks, why does it matter where their liquor comes from? You said above that you expect X to confiscate the legally-purchased liquor from a havoc causer. I don't get why that is any more practicable than confiscating smuggled liquor. In EITHER case, you'd have to search the stateroom, as otherwise, the drunk would simply hide their liquor (legal or otherwise) and say it had already been consumed...

 

3) Do they have a different Policy that allows X to confiscate alcohol from Havoc Causers?

 

4) The Policy I am discussing allows X to search for "illegal" alcohol. The Havoc Causer cannot prove, once the alcohol is aboard, if it came from a pre purchased stash or a smuggled stash. This statement presumes a Havoc Causer actually pre purchased.

 

5) If there is no Policy against "illegal" alcohol X do not have any right to search for alcohol or to confiscate alcohol.

 

6) A Havoc Causer who is a danger to themselves, others or the ship should have their cabins searched to avoid any further havoc before getting to the next port and dumping them on the pier!!! The Policy allows for this.

 

7) As far as hiding their liquor, the Policy I am discussing is trying to address this by giving X the right to check bottled water etc...

 

I hope this gets my point across. Thanks for the questions,

 

Happy Travels

 

Cindy

[oceanbear]

I just wonder how many cruisers think the wine/liquor policy is for safety or to allow X to sell more unrestricted drinks. If they wanted to enforce all the rules they would get a lot of abusers pi---- off but it would make others happy, ie. chair hogs, dress in dining room. As for bringing a bottle for the room hurts no one. Anyone having a drink or 2 in the cabin will be drinking at the bars . Having a drink as you leave port in your cabin while dressing correctly for dinner hurts NO ONE and makes the passenger feel good. I'm not going to run to the bar to get a couple of drinks when I'm trying to dress and if I can choose to have 2, should I go to the bar half dressed? Especially on formal nights walking down the hall in my shorts while people are dressed in line to have pictures taken seems really inappropriate. And as far as wine, if they had a decent selection above the Costco list they usually offer we wouldn't bring our own and pay them $15 for the privlege of drinking our chosen wine. And if they carried my favorite rum I might buy a bottle from them.

By the way, does anyone know if the aluminum or plastic caps register on the security scanners. Then I could put a bottle in my jacet interior pocket and walk right on rather than putting it in my bag going thru the scanner?

I agree and here are my 2 cents which I also posted on another thread:

 

If my wife and I travel alone, we tend to like a drink or 2 in our cabin. If we travel with friends we usually drink only at the bars or restaurant, unless someone has a large suite. :) If Celebrity wants to keep "booze smuggling" to a minimum, they should encourage onboard purchases by reducing their current prices. It's obviously not against "Celebrity Policy" to have a bottle of liquor in your room, as long as you are willing to pay them 3 times the "retail" price as a "Bon Voyage Gift". Their similarly priced wines could also use some price adjustment. My definition of "fair pricing" is no more than 2 times retail. It is inconvenient to carry aboard wine, but I can bring some really good, albeit expensive, wine and pay the corkage rather than pay 3 times the price for cheap so-so wine. I for one would rather not have to haul a bottle of liquor on board, but $60 for a $15 bottle of Gin and some soda and nuts doesn't seem fair to me. Celebrity and RCCL should encourage "buying on board" by making onboard prices more attractive, not by focusing on "enforcement".

The "booze rule" has been in effect all along. It will be interesting to see what the real effects are if the recently announced enforcement is actually implemented. Worse case for me; they hold my wine and liquor to the end of the cruise.

 

Dennis

[Drew B]

Cindy, I am still confused... YOU brought up the amount of liquor by asking how long it would take to empty the minibar or finish up legally purchased bottles of liquor. I was just responding to that. YOU brought up that you felt that Celebrity should "confiscate all liquor that any Havoc Causer has in their possesion including that which has been purchased "legally"..." I was simply responding.

 

As for this:

 

5) If there is no Policy against "illegal" alcohol X do not have any right to search for alcohol or to confiscate alcohol.

 

That is simply not true. They set the rules. If they make it so that they can search for contraband alcohol, they can also make a policy that they are allowed to search for legally purchased alcohol if the passenger becomes a problem.

 

Thanks.

[jcrandle]

Several posters have taken a "leap of faith" and combined alcohol smuggling with inappropriate behaviour of some cruisers. This makes it difficult to logically discuss the two issues.

 

Inappropriate behavior, whether caused by alcohol, drugs, or just general obnoxiousness needs to be dealt with firmly, fairly and immediately by the cruise line. Included in the terms and condtions in your ticket is the following statement. Carrier reserves the right to terminate a Passenger's cruise or RCT Land Tour or both at any time, at the risk and expense of the Passenger disembarked, when in the opinion of Carrier, Passenger is believed to be a danger to himself or a disturbance or danger to others.

I don't care whether a jerk is drunk or sober, whether he is imbibing smuggled alcohol, or has been served it by the ship's staff, if he or she is interfering with other pax's right to enjoy their cruise, the crew should take appropriate action, up to and including escorting them off the ship. The boards contain more than one reference to this happening on many cruise lines.

So stopping booze smuggling will not lessen the likelhood that someone will misbehave, nor will it make anyone's cruise more enjoyable, as long as Celebrity enforces this rule.

Which brings up back to the question being debated. Did Celebrity re-emphasize this rule to enhance the cruising experience for everyone, or just to increase their revenue. The answer is clear to me, however, it is also clear that NEVER has anyone's opinion on this matter ever been swayed by discussions of logic and reason. If your mind is made up, you will not be confused by facts

So another thread grinds to its inevitable conclusion, serving only to fill internet bandwidth, but solving nothing. I will say that it has been one of the more gentlemanly and ladylike discussions.

We now return you to your regular threads to solve chair-hogging, swim diapers, formal night dress. and speedo's on guys and gals that are afflicted with terminal dunlap disease.

Have a great cruise.

 

 

[Sow There]

Well, technically, it is not a new policy. BYOB has always been contrary to policy, other than, perhaps wine, because of the associated corkage thing.

 

But, look at it this way. Instead of a 'cash grab', perhaps it is preventative 'medicine'. I'm sure the thought has crossed someone's mind that if a passenger has a few too many, and the cruise line did nothing to restrict it, then, heaven forbid, something bad happens to that passenger, the lawyers might line up to claim it was the cruise line's 'fault' since they did nothing about it?

I would think the opposite is more the case.

 

If X says the only way a passenger is permitted to consume alcohol on board is if they serve it, and they deliver a bottle or two at the 3 x retail price they usually charge, and the pax drinks it all in one sitting and something bad happens, X is culpable because they provided the means.

 

On the other hand, the passenger "smuggles" a bottle on board and drinks it all in one sitting and something bad happens, the cruise line now has the perfect defense; that is they can prove they provided notice to the passenger who ignored (violated) the notice by sneaking aboard the bottle.

 

That means the policy statement is designed to create an impenetrable defense for acts they know are going to happen regardless of what they would prefer to have happen.

[lambcom]

It's interesting to note that the Poll on booze smuggling on this board (of which I am the OP) with about 130 respondents so far, the percentage of people who smuggle or smuggle plus buy on board stands at 43.8% as compared to the 35.77% who say they play is strictly by the rules and only buy their liquor in bars or the restaurants.

 

Seems to me that Celebrity is going to have an uphill battle on its hands if it tries to get heavy handed about booze in checked luggage. That's an awful lot of people who could vote with their feet.

 

George+

 

PS if you haven't already voted in the poll, please do so!

[m steve]

just checked and there seems equal votes for smuggling and buying. There should be a place to vote for smuggling and buying and I bet every smuggler spends another $300+ in the bars.

The only havoc person I found on a cruise was a non drinker born again trying to convert people. Maybe he needed a good stiff drink to know his place!

X doesn't market to the college kids that seem to be the heavy drinkers and noise makers on Carnival or Royal C. Why are they trying to antagonize their core customers? I'm already checking other lines for Dec. cruises!

[sirgonealot]

I do not smuggle booze onboard but have always openly brought wines of my choosing. After a long day of tours the last thing I want to do is sit in a bar. I want to go to my room and enjoy sitting on my balcony with a glass of wine of my choice before dressing for dinner.

 

One of my past cruise experiences was purchasing interesting wines in South America and bringing them onboard to share with my tablemates(paying the corkage fee). My DH has also enjoyed bringing onboard a few bottles of beer purchased at micro-breweries.

 

This consumption has taken place in the PRIVACY of my cabin. As mentioned before, hotels which would also have the same liability as a cruiseline do not invade my privacy by telling me what I can and cannot place in my luggage and tell me that they have the right to go through my luggage when they suspect my shampoo bottle may contain alcohol!!

 

I resent being treated like a child and I really resent the fact that any Tom, Dick or Harry has been given the right to touch my personal possessions.

 

I have solved the Celebrity/RCL problem. I just booked my 11 day November cruise on another cruiseline. I hope this cruiseline will give me the respect I deserve just as I hope to give them and their other cruise guests the respect they deserve.

[cat616]

Cindy, I am still confused... YOU brought up the amount of liquor by asking how long it would take to empty the minibar or finish up legally purchased bottles of liquor. I was just responding to that. YOU brought up that you felt that Celebrity should "confiscate all liquor that any Havoc Causer has in their possesion including that which has been purchased "legally"..." I was simply responding.

 

As for this:

 

That is simply not true. They set the rules. If they make it so that they can search for contraband alcohol, they can also make a policy that they are allowed to search for legally purchased alcohol if the passenger becomes a problem.

 

Thanks.

 

Hi Drew,

 

I have found that the problem with a type written discussion is that the people involved can not hear the tone of the voice and the inflection required to detect humour, sarcasm or any other connotations that are received by voice.

 

Your above reply reads to me that you are getting annoyed because I was annoyed. I am not annoyed. I am just trying to answer your very good questions. You may not be annoyed either. I cannot be sure. :o

 

Now back to the topic. As for my Item 5. I think this is true, you do not. Lets agree to disagree. At the end of the day only X knows the reason for this Policy.

 

 

Happy Travels

 

Cindy

[cat616]

Several posters have taken a "leap of faith" and combined alcohol smuggling with inappropriate behaviour of some cruisers. This makes it difficult to logically discuss the two issues....

 

... and others have taken the Leap that says "it is a money grab". They are combining smuggling with economic gains/losses (gains for X/losses for themselves).

 

Actually for me it is not a leap of faith, it is my interpretation of the Policy. Just one interpretation, that is all.

 

...Which brings up back to the question being debated. Did Celebrity re-emphasize this rule to enhance the cruising experience for everyone, or just to increase their revenue.

 

See Post 1 of this discussion.

 

...The answer is clear to me...

 

Sounds like your mind is made up.

 

...however, it is also clear that NEVER has anyone's opinion on this matter ever been swayed by discussions of logic and reason. If your mind is made up, you will not be confused by facts

 

I like the discussion of logic and reasoning. The only fact is the Policy, everything else is logic, conjecture, opinion and reasoning.

 

Happy Travels

 

Cindy

[oceanbear]

I was thinking of this improbable scenario. What if our chosen cruise line made the following announcement?

 

“In order to insure the safety of our passengers and avoid the types of accidents which have recently occurred in Peru and other locales, this cruise line will only allow passengers to take excursions booked through the cruise line. Third party excursions will no longer be allowed.”

 

I could make this even more Draconian by stating: “in order to enforce our ‘excursion safety policy’, only passengers holding tickets on a ship’s excursion will be allowed to leave the ship”.

 

Would we believe this was really done for safety or to increase revenues? In any case, would the same people still make the comment “If you can’t afford an extra $xx, maybe cruising is not for them.”

[bububr]

Thats a really unfair point.

 

Those who were passengers on X and suffered the consequences of an accident/incident, is not the same thing. As a matter of fact I find your comment quite distasteful.

 

X has no liability/accountability for what people do on their own, however in most cases they go the extra mile.

 

I know, I had something happen to me.

 

Accidents happen......Irresponsibility is a choice.

 

Dave:eek:

[TEXASMUNK]

Every time the liquor question comes up, someone starts a thread....my souse enjoys a drink while getting ready for dinner in the cabin...

 

Just for a change, try substituting breakfast for dinner or taking shower or anything, the before dinner thing is tired.

[oceanbear]

Thats a really unfair point.

 

Those who were passengers on X and suffered the consequences of an accident/incident, is not the same thing. As a matter of fact I find your comment quite distasteful.

 

X has no liability/accountability for what people do on their own, however in most cases they go the extra mile.

 

I know, I had something happen to me.

 

Accidents happen......Irresponsibility is a choice.

 

Dave:eek:

One reason I usually avoid this type of discussion is that it seems every word is analyzed and someone takes issue with something you say or the way you said it. Sorry if I offended anyone!

 

So, please drop the words "avoid the types of accidents which have recently occurred in Peru and other locales". and comment on the point I was trying to make with my "highly improbable" scenario.

[usha]

I'd say that's in the same category of "highly improbable scenarios" as being abducted by aliens. :rolleyes:

[surfklutz]

I don't get it - Celebrity says that you can't bring booze onboard. Don't like it?- try another cruiseline that allows it. Why do you think this is a matter of picking a chosing rules? The cruiselines can make whatever policies they want - and yes, it is a matter of onboard revenue - but deciding you are going to disregard that rule because it doesn't suit you is just plain confusing. Are you the same people who want Celebrity to enforce its policy on dress in the dining room?

[BB5953]

I don't get it - Celebrity says that you can't bring booze onboard. Don't like it?- try another cruiseline that allows it. Why do you think this is a matter of picking a chosing rules? The cruiselines can make whatever policies they want - and yes, it is a matter of onboard revenue - but deciding you are going to disregard that rule because it doesn't suit you is just plain confusing. Are you the same people who want Celebrity to enforce its policy on dress in the dining room?

I am deciding to disregard the rule for a few personal reasons. I'm not doing it just to break the rules. I'm doing it to increase the quality of my vacation, it's a personal choice.

 

I couldn't care less what the dress code is, I speed from time to time I also don't always recycle (even though it is a local law). Lets all climb down from our moral pedestals and agree that others will do what they want and unless it effects you adversely you shouldn't care if I have a martini on my balcony.

[Drew B]

Hi Drew,

 

I have found that the problem with a type written discussion is that the people involved can not hear the tone of the voice and the inflection required to detect humour, sarcasm or any other connotations that are received by voice.

 

Your above reply reads to me that you are getting annoyed because I was annoyed. I am not annoyed. I am just trying to answer your very good questions. You may not be annoyed either. I cannot be sure. :o

 

Now back to the topic. As for my Item 5. I think this is true, you do not. Lets agree to disagree. At the end of the day only X knows the reason for this Policy.

 

 

Happy Travels

 

Cindy

 

I'm not and have never been annoyed on this thread. I'm trying to understand your logic and make sure that MY logic isn't being misunderstood. Overall, though, I get where you stand and it's all cool by me...

 

 

And I thought that Oceanbear's analogy to the third-party excursion was brilliant! I'm sorry if that is offensive or distasteful...

[usha]

I am deciding to disregard the rule for a few personal reasons. I'm not doing it just to break the rules. I'm doing it to increase the quality of my vacation, it's a personal choice.

 

I couldn't care less what the dress code is, I speed from time to time I also don't always recycle (even though it is a local law). Lets all climb down from our moral pedestals and agree that others will do what they want and unless it effects you adversely you shouldn't care if I have a martini on my balcony.

 

I guess I missed the small print in Celebrity's new booze rule:

"The tragically hip are excused.":p

[BB5953]

I guess I missed the small print in Celebrity's new booze rule:

"The tragically hip are excused.":p

 

LOL my niece's would disagree with me being tragically hip but I do love the martini's!!!

[CStorm]

The one rule I did break while on my cruise was the smuggling rule. We (a group of 7) brought our own wine. My DH and I actually put ours in a cardboard box with styrofoam insert, taped it up, slapped a luggage sticker on it and sent it on it's way. It was delivered to our cabin with our luggage. We then sent our wine to dinner every night with our cabin steward. It was waiting for us every night. We were charged the $15 corkage per bottle every night, but we had great wine and we didn't care. They didn't seem to be upset about it at all.

[m steve]

Did anyone have their luggage searched on your cruise? Any thrown off the ship for bringing wine?

As for your comment about need for liquor- if a person enjoys a drink or 2 in their cabin or on the veranda as part of a vacation, it's their choice!