The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[mjldvlks]

Hmm if there are indeed multiple tests, this could change things. If there was indeed a positive test, I have no sympathy for OP or her DH.

 

Paul, is it really a "positive" result or simply a "look further" result? From what you said above, if a legal substance would cause this result it seems hard to call it "positive." And it is still inconcsistent with the CC article. Any comment Mr. Askin?

 

I am not familiar with these tests, but cannot understand why the police would stop at the THC test if the earlier test showed the stuff was positive for something. Still not adding up.

[reallyitsmema]

Well as eager as she was to comment in her original thread, the OP's silence at this point is deafening. Guess she has "No Comment" now that the rest of the story is coming out. Seems she used this board as a platform when she could control the conversation, but now is nowhere to be seen. :rolleyes:

She has posted on another thread that she is not allowed to discuss it online anymore. Probably told by her attorney to be quiet.

[Aquahound]

Paul, is it really a "positive" result or simply a "look further" result? From what you said above, if a legal substance would cause this result it seems hard to call it "positive." And it is still inconcsistent with the CC article.

 

A little of both. It's mostly a "look further" result, but the "look further" is due to the test detecting what "could be," in a case like this, THC.

 

But remember, this was all speculation on my part. I have no idea if this was the testing they used.

[ryano]

Well as eager as she was to comment in her original thread, the OP's silence at this point is deafening.

 

Not really. She was advised, I suppose by her attorney, to not speak about this issue any more on this board according to what was posted in our roll call thread.

 

THAT is the reason she is "silent"

[jonbgd]

And it is still inconcsistent with the CC article. Any comment Mr. Askin?

 

Still not adding up.

And thats why Im asking BecciBoo

if Dan Askin states"Royal Caribbean has declined to comment further on the incident"

Than how has she got a response

[tanelicus]

Oy. Don't you all see this is pointless, at this point?:confused:

 

 

This is between RCI and these folks.

 

I guess its cathartic for people to debate, is my only guess?

 

I was having some fun with this yesterday, however in the end everybody has their own opinion so it just becomes futile.

[Cruising89143]

SHOCKER...not! Naughty Naughty OP!!!:cool:

 

Agree.

 

Also, I left this thread last night and came home and it's like the Energizer Bunny. Keeps going and going.:eek:

[rolloman]

Well as eager as she was to comment in her original thread, the OP's silence at this point is deafening. Guess she has "No Comment" now that the rest of the story is coming out. Seems she used this board as a platform when she could control the conversation, but now is nowhere to be seen. :rolleyes:

 

Maybe her attorney advised her not to. I doubt any of the arm chair know it all CC posters sent her running for the hills in tears. As with any thread on basically any topic some of the replies are simply mind boggeling. They did not violate any rules. In the end my bet is they get a refund.

[Langley Cruisers]

This is between RCI and these folks. I guess its cathartic for people to debate, is my only guess?

 

Thank you!!!!!!!!! Oh my goodness, I feel the same way. Even though I have commented a couple times in this thread, it is absolutely no one else's business. Obviously OP made it someone else's business, but think how involved and invested so many folks here are.

[Cruising89143]

She has posted on another thread that she is not allowed to discuss it online anymore. Probably told by her attorney to be quiet.

 

I seriously have my doubts on that. More like she knew she lied to us and there was more to the story. Now we have Becci's comments from her phone call with RCI.

[tanelicus]

NEWS FLASH!!!!

 

I just received a personal call from the office of Richard Fain regarding my email about Tobaccogate. An assistant reveals that the field test RCCL used was indeed a different one from the one the port authority used. He says RCCL's test is much more "broad spectrum" and did test positive for a questionable substance. He said the ships Captain was only concerned with this first test that was done. He was not allowed to make a determination of guilt or intention on the part of the cruisers but just wanted to reassure me that our cruise would be a wonderful vacation and not to be alarmed about this incident.

 

Now to those who think it was dumb to email them, they DO indeed read Cruise Critic and care what their passengers think. I thought that was really something to get a call about such a "Lame" concern.:cool: Thanks RCCL.

 

And to Hagar360z....

 

 

 

 

and second I am calling BS on this one. Broader spectrum.... really?

[karatemom2]

Not really. She was advised, I suppose by her attorney, to not speak about this issue any more on this board according to what was posted in our roll call thread.

 

THAT is the reason she is "silent"

 

Well her attorney should have given her that advice before she launched that initial thread with all of her half-truths and self-serving commentary. She has already given RCI's attorneys plenty of ammunition. Probably a bit too late for silence now, but "my attorney told me to be quiet now" is a good excuse on her part for not responding now that more details have come to light.

[Cruising89143]

I asked but he said he could not go into detail. I then said, "I guess the couple WAS trying to smuggle something." and he said he could not comment regarding that.

 

Which one would expect in this situation. Felt that we had not heard everything. Guess it is slowly coming out.

[Cruising89143]

Well her attorney should have given her that advice before she launched that initial thread with all of her half-truths and self-serving commentary. She has already given RCI's attorneys plenty of ammunition. Probably a bit too late for silence now, but "my attorney told me to be quiet now" is a good excuse on her part for not responding now that more details have come to light.

 

 

Bingo.

[reallyitsmema]

I seriously have my doubts on that. More like she knew she lied to us and there was more to the story. Now we have Becci's comments from her phone call with RCI.

Possibly. She is obviously online reading as you saw last night and I have seen today. Plus, who else would have requested the names be changed in the news article? From the incident report, they are now referring to the husband by his middle name since you can see the name Robert on the report.

 

I think it is best if she doesn't comment if they are ever going to have a leg to stand on. The cruiseline shouldn't be talking either though and I am sure the legal department would take issue with whoever supposedly made that phone call.

[Langley Cruisers]

If you don't believe me that's your choice, but the phone number on my cell was from 305-539-6000.

 

Well so much for discretion.

 

No disrespect but why would they call you and divulge private information?

 

Why would Becci divulge the content of her phone call here, is what I want to know. This whole thing smacks of indiscretion, on everyone's part.

[mjldvlks]

A little of both. It's mostly a "look further" result, but the "look further" is due to the test detecting what "could be," in a case like this, THC.

 

But remember, this was all speculation on my part. I have no idea if this was the testing they used.

 

I understand we are all speculating. But assuming you are correct, then would you see the initial result as an indication to do further testing beyond THC? In other words, does it make sense to you that after this preliminary test [if it is indeed a different test] and a negative THC test that the PC police officers packed it in and gave the stuff back to the subject [as their spokesperson said they did]?

[aurelius180]

Nothing BeccBoo posted is dramatically different than what CC got from RCI in their article. When she pressed them for more details they provided "no comment."

 

The number BecciBoo provided is posted by their Media Relations Department for Corporate:

 

http://www.royalcaribbean.com/ourCompany/pressCenter/mediaContacts.do

[cruzfitter]

FACT: RCL stated that the substance was illegal.

Wrong. The port report stated it was a legal substance.

FACT: RCL stated that it was destroyed because it was illegal.

Wrong. It was returned to the person.

 

How weird you use that you state the above to try to discredit my points, but continue to assert the validity of your points when exactly the same principle applies. :rolleyes:

And exactly how do you know which is the fact and which is a lie?

[ryano]

I think it is best if she doesn't comment if they are ever going to have a leg to stand on. The cruiseline shouldn't be talking either though and I am sure the legal department would take issue with whoever supposedly made that phone call.

 

This ^

[CruzieSue]

Being a first time cruiser this year and new to CruiseCritic, it didn't take me long to realize how many people figure out and willingly publicize their sneaky ways of taking banned items onboard just because they want to, i.e. rum runners, alcoholic beverages, scissors, irons, just to name a few. From what I've read, these people knew they were not supposed to bring whatever "tobacco" product it was onboard. Some people don't know what honesty is and some people don't know when it's a good thing just to keep your mouth shut. :eek:

[cruzfitter]

My point is WHY have RCL posted falsehoods if they were completely sure they have done the right thing here.

Once again how do you know that RCL version isn't the correct one? I'm not saying that it is because I wasn't there but I do know that one version isn't quite true. So I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to RCL.

[shaggyofwv]

If they are innocent, why hide it in the first place?

 

 

This. Why would someone HIDE tobacco, and in such a place that made it obvious that they wanted it concealed?

 

The original "story" that we were given made it sound like they just slid it into their dive bag, no mention of the can with the faux bottom.

 

If it truly did turn out to be tobacco AND RCI was informed that is was tobacco then there must have been other reasons that they were not allowed to re-board the ship.

 

I would be angry at missing my cruise as well, but it is dumb as hell to hide tobacco and make it look as if you are trying to smuggle something on-board.

[utkikr21]

Has no one pointed out that the very angry and overzealous port security guard (as stated in the original thread) who was looking for her "bonus" is none other than the same port security who is verifying the story of the "tobacco" being tested negative for THC and it actually being returned to the original OP and DH???

 

Too many holes in original OP's story to believe her that nothing else occured to be considered high risk.

[rachunter]

Wow, I can't believe I've read both threads! Obviously, I need to get a life!:D

 

After reading the original thread, I felt there was more to the story but was still sympathetic to the OP and believed RC should refund their cruise money.

 

Now, after reading the CC article and this thread, IMO, no refund. I think the Captain made his decision based on the information he had at the time, keeping in mind that, according to the article, the couple was removed from the ship sometime after 3pm. Sailing time for the Freedom is 430pm so the Captain did not have a lot of time and had to go with the info he had. In hindsight, perhaps he would have made a different decision (especially if he had had the benefit of all the wisdom here on CC:D) but it sounds like he went with caution. Remember, at the port, they only knew it was not positive for THC, they did not know what else it might contain. I know "MARY" and "Robert" told security it was just hookah tobacco, but do you take the word of someone who was just caught trying to smuggle it in a faux hairspray can? Remember, "Robert" said it did not look like regular tobacco.

 

With all the issues that have made the news lately regarding drugs on cruise ships, I think it was the right decision at that time.

 

Sherri:) aka NOT A CHEERLEADER

 

I agree totally with this post. I was on that ship and I would not have wanted to wait while this problem was being sorted out. I would imagine the Captain was a little busy at the time and he made the best decision he could make with the information he had at the time.

I also remember reading on the other post that the husband was not even a smoker, I think she said on a previous cruise he had one cigar that lasted him the whole week.

Why go to all this trouble for something to smoke for someone that is not even a smoker?