Liquor in Room (Smuggling)

[fjb3cpa]

Here is what I posted in the thread with the poll regarding carry-on/packed liquor. Anyone here buying my approach?

 

Jim

 

"I intend to continue as I have in the past - pack small bottles (I believe maybe 375 ml) in bubble wrap and Zip-Loc bags in my packed luggage of rum, gin, and Jameson's for use as a small mini-bar/hospitality center for my cabin, for use late afternoon on the balcony and pre-dinner and whenever any of our travelling companions stop by. I will generally pick up mixers right before boarding while in port, and if Celebrity would like to go through my checked luggage prior to my boarding and remove the bottles have at it and more power to them. In the past I have found that to be the perfect amount for a 7 day trip at about 3 or 4 drinks a day between my spouse, myself, and whomever drops by."

 

Jim

[CStorm]

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!

 

If anyone had their luggage searched, I don't know about it. All 7 of us smuggled on wine and liquor.

[cdbaum]

I am amazed at how the conversation keeps getting away from the central point. The current rule prohibits passengers from bringing their own booze on board. What about that is confusing? I agree that the wine prohibition doesn't make a lot of sense but it's part of the rule.

 

I assume that people that do attempt to bring their own on board won't have any problem with Celebrity confiscating it or not letting them board.

 

You know, sort of like how you don't complain when you get a ticket for speeding, or running a stop sign, or running over a pedestrian, or get arrested for robbing a bank, or court marshalled for shooting an officer.

 

I'm sorry, did you want to pick which rules apply to you? The problem with people choosing which rules they want to comply with is that everyone can put the line where they want.

 

You "deserve" to have a couple of drinks on your balcony... I deserve to take your car if I feel like it. Sounds fair.

[02143]

I think the reason people feel eager to discuss breaking this rule, but not the rules on chair hogs and the dress code, is because they feel that in no plausible way does "smuggling" ruin or harm the cruising experience for anyone else.

 

Chair hogs? They hurt everyone. People in thong bikinis at dinner? They clearly distract from the experience and contribute to a lower sense of decorum. But someone smuggling alcohol on board? Unless they binge drink, you'll never know they're doing it. Neither will Celebrity, except that the sale of $60/$80 bottles of vodka will be lower than normal.

 

The only way that non-smugglers will feel any effect from smuggling is that the loss of revenue might hurt Celebrity's ability to offer cut-rate accommodations for them. If Celebrity's not making as much money from people who drink, they'll have to make up the money elsewhere. I would be surprised if this had not occurred to some of the people who are offended by smugglers and want to know why we won't spend $80 for a bottle of Stoli offered by Celebrity... after all, that $60 profit can go a way toward lowering prices for others.

[surfklutz]

I am amazed at how the conversation keeps getting away from the central point. The current rule prohibits passengers from bringing their own booze on board. What about that is confusing? I agree that the wine prohibition doesn't make a lot of sense but it's part of the rule.

 

I assume that people that do attempt to bring their own on board won't have any problem with Celebrity confiscating it or not letting them board.

 

You know, sort of like how you don't complain when you get a ticket for speeding, or running a stop sign, or running over a pedestrian, or get arrested for robbing a bank, or court marshalled for shooting an officer.

 

I'm sorry, did you want to pick which rules apply to you? The problem with people choosing which rules they want to comply with is that everyone can put the line where they want.

 

You "deserve" to have a couple of drinks on your balcony... I deserve to take your car if I feel like it. Sounds fair.

 

Bravo!

 

And to say that taking this stand is self righteous is pretty short sighted. You chose the line - you need to accept the policies. Since when does it make any sense to think you can take your cruise on your own terms? You don't like their terms - find another cruise line.

[CStorm]

You "deserve" to have a couple of drinks on your balcony... I deserve to take your car if I feel like it. Sounds fair.

 

:confused: :confused: So by me bringing wine on that X knows about, taking it to their dining room, paying them to open it, you can take my car?? Not sure I follow that one...

[cdbaum]

I'm not talking about wine that they know about and complies with their policy. I believe the new policy is that you can't bring your own wine anymore but I was thinking more of the "smuggling" aspect.

 

If your wine doesn't violate the rules then it is a moot point.

 

Personally I don't give a da*n about the booze per se, it's the random choice of which rules one wants to comply with that seems contrary to being a good member of society.

 

I know that the liquor policy is a small thing in the bigger scheme but it's the point of rules in general.

[BB5953]

Personally I don't give a da*n about the booze per se, it's the random choice of which rules one wants to comply with that seems contrary to being a good member of society.

 

 

Consider it civil disobedience...

[02143]

Consider it civil disobedience...

 

Indeed. Throughout history, mankind has rebelled against laws that are considered to be unjust or capricious or to have no basis in fair play. If a law punishes a victimless crime and helps no one but the enforcer, it is suspect and invites disrespect. And many people have always been keen to enforce laws that are unjust or capricious to OTHER PEOPLE, but not themselves. It's the human condition.

 

People may disagree with that, but I am surprised that people genuinely do not understand why some people choose to try to break the rules instead of paying Celebrity $60 for that $20 bottle of vodka.

 

In many ways, to smuggle a bottle of vodka on board a Celebrity ship is to honor great moments of civil disobedience throughout human history, most notably Mahatma Gandhi's "march to the sea" to gather salt in protest of the onerous salt tax that the British colonial government imposed on the people of India.

 

Now, I can't speak for everyone here, but I choose to stand side by side with Gandhi on moral issues. If others prefer to identify with law over the human spirit, that is their choice as well.

[LONESTAR 101]

Indeed. Throughout history, mankind has rebelled against laws that are considered to be unjust or capricious or to have no basis in fair play. If a law punishes a victimless crime and helps no one but the enforcer, it is suspect and invites disrespect. And many people have always been keen to enforce laws that are unjust or capricious to OTHER PEOPLE, but not themselves. It's the human condition.

 

People may disagree with that, but I am surprised that people genuinely do not understand why some people choose to try to break the rules instead of paying Celebrity $60 for that $20 bottle of vodka.

 

In many ways, to smuggle a bottle of vodka on board a Celebrity ship is to honor great moments of civil disobedience throughout human history, most notably Mahatma Gandhi's "march to the sea" to gather salt in protest of the onerous salt tax that the British colonial government imposed on the people of India.

 

Now, I can't speak for everyone here, but I choose to stand side by side with Gandhi on moral issues. If others prefer to identify with law over the human spirit, that is their choice as well.

 

I stand beside you as well!;) People with free will is what made this Country apparently everyone forgets this and goes into the Pablo Mode!;) Thought id throw it in sounds good!:D

[bububr]

While I whole heartedly agree with this, as a business owner I also see the other side.

 

Owning my own business I have the RIGHT to set my own policies and proceedures as long as they comply within the so set laws. Osha, SS, Minimun wage, etc.........

 

Having that right grants me the privilege of saying "NO" to a current, or prospective client. While they may be paying me with their money for a service, or product....It is still my service and my product they are aquiring and I do have the final say. If the prospect client does not agree to my terms they are welcome to go elsewhere, period. They do not pay my monthly overhead, my taxes, for my supplies...etc. Yes they do contribute to my bottom line, but there are as many non-agreeant clients as there are agreeant ones. ( is agreeant a word?).

 

Personally If I have a client that begins to be a PITA, I don't want them regardless of the potential income because I have learned these kinds of clients are more work than they are potentially worth in the end. I may simply finish the project, thank them, eat my losses whatever they may be ( time, money, supplies ) and then simply and politely refuse anymore work from them in the future.

 

In effect if it is something I do not want to get involved with, I won't. And that is my right.

 

The same goes here for X. Its their company, their policies, and they have the right to enforce or waive their policies. As a private publically traded company The only way to change the policy would be to buy into it ,and influence the decision making by stockholders shares.....Its part of the democracy that we fought for so long ago. Civil dissobediance is not an option in this case, although it is a grand idea.

 

I don't see those who do 'smuggle' to stop doing it, its not in their nature. But if something adverse does indeed happen, I do hope they will face up to their responsibility and not simply pass the blame.

 

Dave:eek:

[Drew B]

Bravo!

 

And to say that taking this stand is self righteous is pretty short sighted. You chose the line - you need to accept the policies. Since when does it make any sense to think you can take your cruise on your own terms? You don't like their terms - find another cruise line.

 

Well, the one point that those complaining DO have is that this "change" was implemented suddenly. If this "change" makes them reconsider cruising with X (for example, if the ability to bring aboard their own selection of wine is a make-or-break issue), they should be allowed to cancel without penalty, even if they are beyond final payment.

[LONESTAR 101]

Well, the one point that those complaining DO have is that this "change" was implemented suddenly. If this "change" makes them reconsider cruising with X (for example, if the ability to bring aboard their own selection of wine is a make-or-break issue), they should be allowed to cancel without penalty, even if they are beyond final payment.

AMEN!

[bububr]

This policy has always been there. Its not new, with the exception of the new 21 rule which now puts X inline with most of the other lines.

 

The difference is it is being enforced. Thats all. The policies and cruise contract has not changed, so I highly doubt any refunds or so-called legal action could be applied. However in the case of the new 21 rule, there might be a grey area. Aside from the fact that if you are travelling X's policy states you must be at least 21 or have a 21year old in your room, and if under 21 a legal guadian must give you permission and sign a waiver allowing you to drink...not much has changed except for the few paents of 18, 19, and twenty year olds who would have allowed then to drink beer or wine no longer have that option. If that is to be a make or break issue, then its up to the legal guardians or parents to contest the issue with X. In this case I would think they would be able to get some kind of compensation due to the short notice.

 

Dave:eek:

[surfklutz]

Wow - scary stuff on these boards. "I will do what I want, when I want and if I disobey policies it's not my fault - you made me do it?" Scary, Scary Scary.

 

Do you have the same right to smoke in a restaurant that has a policy against smoking because it lessens your enjoyment? And if they kick you out of the restaurant, is it there fault for making the rule in the first place?

 

I think reading some of these posts makes it very clear why our world is so whacked. I'll say it again - if you don't like the policy - find another cruise line. There are many that include all the booze you can drink. Just imagine being able to drink the value of your cruise fare - and no one to stop you. It seems like for some it would be the best deal out there!

[Andipanda1]

Indeed. Throughout history, mankind has rebelled against laws that are considered to be unjust or capricious or to have no basis in fair play. If a law punishes a victimless crime and helps no one but the enforcer, it is suspect and invites disrespect. And many people have always been keen to enforce laws that are unjust or capricious to OTHER PEOPLE, but not themselves. It's the human condition.

 

People may disagree with that, but I am surprised that people genuinely do not understand why some people choose to try to break the rules instead of paying Celebrity $60 for that $20 bottle of vodka.

 

In many ways, to smuggle a bottle of vodka on board a Celebrity ship is to honor great moments of civil disobedience throughout human history, most notably Mahatma Gandhi's "march to the sea" to gather salt in protest of the onerous salt tax that the British colonial government imposed on the people of India.

 

Now, I can't speak for everyone here, but I choose to stand side by side with Gandhi on moral issues. If others prefer to identify with law over the human spirit, that is their choice as well.

 

You're kidding, right?

 

The Indian people had no choice--the government imposed the salt tax. You have a choice--you can sail another cruise line.

 

The "March to the Sea" was an act of civil disobediance against a government policy. What Rosa Parks did was an act of civil disobedience.

 

I fail to see how these acts, performed to lift people out of poverty, oppression, and discrimination, compare to your "right," as a person that is free and blessed to have the resources to take a vacation in the first place, to smuggle booze onto a cruise ship.

 

Unless, of course, you're just joking.

[Drew B]

This policy has always been there. Its not new, with the exception of the new 21 rule which now puts X inline with most of the other lines.

 

The difference is it is being enforced. Thats all. The policies and cruise contract has not changed, so I highly doubt any refunds or so-called legal action could be applied. However in the case of the new 21 rule, there might be a grey area. Aside from the fact that if you are travelling X's policy states you must be at least 21 or have a 21year old in your room, and if under 21 a legal guadian must give you permission and sign a waiver allowing you to drink...not much has changed except for the few paents of 18, 19, and twenty year olds who would have allowed then to drink beer or wine no longer have that option. If that is to be a make or break issue, then its up to the legal guardians or parents to contest the issue with X. In this case I would think they would be able to get some kind of compensation due to the short notice.

 

Dave:eek:

 

 

I recognize that there is essentially no "change". That's why I used the quotation marks. However, I do think the wine policy is an actual difference. I think the fact that they always had the corkage policy implied that bringing wine aboard was acceptable. If not, I'd like to have all the corkage fees I paid refunded. If I wasn't allowed to have the wine, they had no business charging me to open it and pour it!!!

[sealover155]

Let's presume for a moment that the Celebrity/RCI policy is not motivated by revenue, only safety. Anyone who has cruised in the Caribbean or Mexico has witnessed cases of beer and liters of liquor coming through as people returned to the ship. What happens to all of that? How much is actually consumed onboard? Do people keep coolers next to their lounge chairs by the pool filled with cool ones? Or do residents from Florida make liquor runs to stock up a couple of times a year? My guess is that there are more liquor related incidents than anyone knows. After the Smith incident, where it is known that Absynthe was brought aboard, and after reviewing the lists of incidents, they have now clamped down. We are going on Century next month and were hoping to bring aboard wine that we plan to purchase in France, Spain and Italy to be enjoyed at dinner. Hopefully we can still do that, but who knows?

[Host Anne]

A reminder - and just one - that it's against board policy to post attacks against other posters. I'm asking everyone to comply with our guidelines, please.

[m steve]

I paid $20 on Princess for a ltr. Why is X overcharging? Same stuff delivered by room service and no 15% add on. Maybe they should change their name to SUCKLEBRITY?

[02143]

Yes, comparing myself to Gandhi was intended to be over the top.

 

I do find this discussion interesting, because ultimately, it's pointless... people keep saying things they don't really mean, because if they said what they meant, they'd realize how pointless the discussion is.

 

Example A: People who support the policy say they can't understand why people break the rules. Well, no offense, but there is simply no way you do not understand why people would try to take advantage of an obvious loophole to save $40 or more. That's the bottom line. How much people are willing to spend on their vacation isn't related to how much they're willing to spend on alcohol; as someone else brought up, because you're willing to spend money on a good value for accommodations doesn't mean you want to get bad value on alcohol.

 

So really, those people are just offended at the behavior, and venting. There's no discussion to be had. We can analyze why they're venting, and I have my theories (both a general belief in the importance of rules, boredom, and an interest in increasing revenue from other passengers to keep stateroom prices down) but it's as irrelevant as to their theories on why smugglers want to break rules and steal property from others.

 

Example B: The smugglers. None of us expect Celebrity to change their rules, and everyone recognizes Celebrity can do what it wants on its own ship. (Note to rule supporters: this means you can stop pointing it out. We know.) However, if a rule seems unenforceable, people will try to break it.

 

Smugglers, then, are just venting about how stupid the rule is and their intentions to break the rules, and the fact is, whether we're caught or not has NO impact on how others cruise. No one's going to sue or threaten to hijack the ship. They may bitch a little at dinner, but that's it.

 

There's no misunderstanding here. There's no discussion. People are venting.

 

I think it would be a much more enjoyable discussion if people made an honest effort to understand where the other side is coming from and what the outcome will be of their bitching here--because it would prove to them how utterly pointless it is to get UPSET about what people are saying! People want to smuggle. Who cares! If they smuggle but insist on the dress code and not chairhogging, that doesn't make them hypocrites, that makes them people you should want to cruise with because they won't violate the dress code and hog chairs!

 

As for those people who still think they don't understand, we should just refer them to our earlier posts instead of hashing it out again and again. I think the issues are clear here. If they still feel their vacations are ruined by smugglers, there's no point in going into it, because it DOESN'T MATTER.

 

And so, that's why I made the comparison to Gandhi. I've been compared to a car thief, an alcoholic, and a binge drinking Carnvialista, so why not a hero of civil rights? The whole discussion is ludicrous and inconsequential for the importance people are ascribing to it. Why not take it to the maximum level?

[BB5953]

Yes, comparing myself to Gandhi was intended to be over the top.

 

I do find this discussion interesting, because ultimately, it's pointless... people keep saying things they don't really mean, because if they said what they meant, they'd realize how pointless the discussion is.

 

Example A: People who support the policy say they can't understand why people break the rules. Well, no offense, but there is simply no way you do not understand why people would try to take advantage of an obvious loophole to save $40 or more. That's the bottom line. How much people are willing to spend on their vacation isn't related to how much they're willing to spend on alcohol; as someone else brought up, because you're willing to spend money on a good value for accommodations doesn't mean you want to get bad value on alcohol.

 

So really, those people are just offended at the behavior, and venting. There's no discussion to be had. We can analyze why they're venting, and I have my theories (both a general belief in the importance of rules, boredom, and an interest in increasing revenue from other passengers to keep stateroom prices down) but it's as irrelevant as to their theories on why smugglers want to break rules and steal property from others.

 

Example B: The smugglers. None of us expect Celebrity to change their rules, and everyone recognizes Celebrity can do what it wants on its own ship. (Note to rule supporters: this means you can stop pointing it out. We know.) However, if a rule seems unenforceable, people will try to break it.

 

Smugglers, then, are just venting about how stupid the rule is and their intentions to break the rules, and the fact is, whether we're caught or not has NO impact on how others cruise. No one's going to sue or threaten to hijack the ship. They may bitch a little at dinner, but that's it.

 

There's no misunderstanding here. There's no discussion. People are venting.

 

I think it would be a much more enjoyable discussion if people made an honest effort to understand where the other side is coming from and what the outcome will be of their bitching here--because it would prove to them how utterly pointless it is to get UPSET about what people are saying! People want to smuggle. Who cares! If they smuggle but insist on the dress code and not chairhogging, that doesn't make them hypocrites, that makes them people you should want to cruise with because they won't violate the dress code and hog chairs!

 

As for those people who still think they don't understand, we should just refer them to our earlier posts instead of hashing it out again and again. I think the issues are clear here. If they still feel their vacations are ruined by smugglers, there's no point in going into it, because it DOESN'T MATTER.

 

And so, that's why I made the comparison to Gandhi. I've been compared to a car thief, an alcoholic, and a binge drinking Carnvialista, so why not a hero of civil rights? The whole discussion is ludicrous and inconsequential for the importance people are ascribing to it. Why not take it to the maximum level?

 

Excellent post! This says it all...

 

but one thing I just have to point out.... we were also compared (or flat out called) cheap drunks which was my personal fav! LOL

[4 cruisers]

I truly think the tightening of this policy must have to do with the legal department of Royal Caribbean/Celebrity. Perhaps it will have bearing on one of the upcoming trials concerning the missing people...or any in the future.

 

We personally will be bringing a couple of bottles of wine to our suite in November...if it gets taken away, so be it. We will try, though. My husband will probably take some little airline bottles of Jack Daniels too for consumption on the balcony...if they get taken away, so be it! We certainly won't let it ruin our trip, but it is the way we have traveled for many years!

 

I remember when NCL really cracked down on the wine policy when we went on the Star in Hawaii. Back then, only the wine in your carryons got confiscated. Once we met the food and bev. director, we were able to get our carryon bottles back. On our next NCL trip out of San Francisco...anything could be taken on board! Go figure!:confused:

 

Maybe those of us who don't take the policy too seriously do so because the lines don't always either.

[VaJoeCool]

Wow, I never knew that all this time I have cruised with Celebrity I was surrounded by people who are such sticklers for obeying the rules. I would have never known it judging by all the lounge-chair hogs and the number of people I see wearing shorts and tank tops in the dining room.

 

Let's get real, there are rules that are enforced and there are rules that are not. The rules that are not enforced are often put into place to deter a behavior, with no real expectation that everyone will comply. Like 10 items or less in the express checkout or only driving in the left lane to pass.

 

I will continue to pack my bottle of scotch in my luggage and keep it in full view on my dressing table. If they want to enforce the rule by confiscating the contraband, so be it. Otherwise I will continue my clearly immoral and illegal behavior. Cheers!

[FLACRUISER99]

I think the world would be a better place if peopled worried about themselves and not what someone else is doing. On every Booze thread some do gooder has start whining about the rules. If someone wants to smuggle I don't care and don't understand why it would bother anyone on this board.