The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[Ocean Boy]

I'm also wondering the same.

If my husband thinks I quit smoking so I get creative and hide a pack and Royal finds it-are we getting thrown off because I hid them???

 

Don't put them in a can with a false bottom.;)

[Aquahound]

The dive bag is going to follow them off the ship while in port. Seems logical since some people dive while in port. It would then return on-board with an illegal substance in it. The hairspray can further conceals the illegal substance. A better can could have been used but maybe the excuse is his wife wanted it while in port to fix her hair after being in the water?

 

I would like to add one more thing. I was a road patrol cop for 7 years. I know the CC article said the can is normally used to conceal jewelry, and maybe that is what it is advertised for, but never in my LE career did I come across one of those cans with jewelry in it. It was always drugs.

 

The whole test run theory makes a lot of sense. Either that, or the hookah tobacco story is also false. Now that I know there was a little untruthfulness, I'm not convinced it wasn't actually spice which, by the way, is commonly smoked in a hookah.

[PH8]

To the OP who started this whole thing----- WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL, we're WAITING.

If the OP has learned anything,I am sure it is NOT to post anymore about the subject,till there is some kind of resolution..

[Capt_BJ]

I'm just wondering

 

imagine if Customs finds a baggie of a leafy organic substance and a pipe in a false bottom can in your luggage on your return to the country

 

for that matter - expensive jewelry hidden in a false bottom can

 

TSA pat down will seem like a child's kiss as compared to this one!

 

false bottom cans and Customs zones ..... duh

[aurelius180]

I would like to add one more thing. I was a road patrol cop for 7 years. I know the CC article said the can is normally used to conceal jewelry, and maybe that is what it is advertised for, but never in my LE career did I come across one of those cans with jewelry in it. It was always drugs.

 

The whole test run theory makes a lot of sense. Either that, or the hookah tobacco story is also false. Now that I know there was a little untruthfulness, I'm not convinced it wasn't actually spice.

 

 

I've never met anyone who ever purchased one...let alone used it to conceal valuables...including the OP :cool:

[B-52]

We have sailed out of Port Canaveral three times and have seen dogs there on two out of three cruises. Both times were before the cruise, not after, but we definitely saw them. They could have been around after too but we are usually trying to get to the airport for a way too early flight and wouldn't notice unless one bit us.;):p

 

2 ears ago..Enchantment - Baltimore, stood on my balcony watching dogs sniff out every load of luggage on every forklift.

 

They were also checking every forklift load of food/provisions.

I have pictures somewhere.

[BeagleOne]

At this point I'd be very interested to know what the couple's demeanor was after the tobacco was found and they were denied reboarding. Were they polite, sheepish, apologetic, rude, aggressive? Did they make threats or do anything that would make someone consider them high-risk apart from the fake can, even though the tobacco was not illegal? Or were they just as polite as could be, and abused by port and ship security people on a power trip? I'd love to hear from other passengers who might have seen something, since I wouldn't trust what the OP had to say.

 

IMHO the fact that they were trying to sneak something on board in a hidden compartment, which could easily be considered a "dry run", might be enough, especially close to departure time. No doubt the captain could have still let them on board and kept an eye on what they brought back from the various ports, but maybe he decided it wasn't worth the hassle and potential legal implications for the cruise line since they'd already caught the couple with a suspicious item (the can). And maybe the couple's attitude after the discovery had something to do with it.

 

I also wonder if the security people were aware that the couple had driven to the port. An eight-hour drive isn't that long, especially with two drivers, so that in itself isn't suspicious, but driving also conveniently avoids airport security. Pretty much everyone knows what a hassle airport security can be; maybe the couple didn't realize that port security can be just as tight.

 

At any rate I don't have a lot of sympathy for them, especially after she lied repeatedly on the original thread. They're not going to get their fares refunded, and they shouldn't.

[bajathree]

The OP was also well educated on suspicious looking items from reading CC...she even made mention herself how paranoid she was for something being mistaken....like contact lens solution being mistaken as trying to smuggle alcohol...she was very clear that she packed all her cosmetics in one bag so that less likely anything would end up in the naughty room. Then her husband conceals what looks like naughty illegal material in a fake can and stuffs it in a dive bag....either she had no idea what her husband was up to or played all of us.

[BeagleOne]

2 ears ago..Enchantment - Baltimore, stood on my balcony watching dogs sniff out every load of luggage on every forklift.

 

They were also checking every forklift load of food/provisions.

I have pictures somewhere.

 

Were they drug/explosive dogs (usually some kind of shepherd or Lab) or agriculture dogs (usually beagles)?

[aurelius180]

The OP was also well educated on suspicious looking items from reading CC...she even made mention herself how paranoid she was for something being mistaken....like contact lens solution being mistaken as trying to smuggle alcohol...she was very clear that she packed all her cosmetics in one bag so that less likely anything would end up in the naughty room. Then her husband conceals what looks like naughty illegal material in a fake can and stuffs it in a dive bag....either she had no idea what her husband was up to or played all of us.

 

 

I think we got played. :cool:

[Ocean Boy]

O.K. I'm getting bored with all this....now for some cruise planning for MY Freedom cruise.....let's see....no cans, check.....no tobacco, check...no Rum Runners, check....no booze, water or soda, check.....no stupidity, check......

Geez I'm almost packed.:D

 

At least you won't have to worry about your luggage being over weight at the airline check-in.

[sredish]

At this point I'd be very interested to know what the couple's demeanor was after the tobacco was found and they were denied reboarding. Were they polite, sheepish, apologetic, rude, aggressive? Did they make threats or do anything that would make someone consider them high-risk apart from the fake can, even though the tobacco was not illegal? Or were they just as polite as could be, and abused by port and ship security people on a power trip? I'd love to hear from other passengers who might have seen something, since I wouldn't trust what the OP had to say.

 

IMHO the fact that they were trying to sneak something on board in a hidden compartment, which could easily be considered a "dry run", might be enough, especially close to departure time. No doubt the captain could have still let them on board and kept an eye on what they brought back from the various ports, but maybe he decided it wasn't worth the hassle and potential legal implications for the cruise line since they'd already caught the couple with a suspicious item (the can). And maybe the couple's attitude after the discovery had something to do with it.

 

I also wonder if the security people were aware that the couple had driven to the port. An eight-hour drive isn't that long, especially with two drivers, so that in itself isn't suspicious, but driving also conveniently avoids airport security. Pretty much everyone knows what a hassle airport security can be; maybe the couple didn't realize that port security can be just as tight.

 

At any rate I don't have a lot of sympathy for them, especially after she lied repeatedly on the original thread. They're not going to get their fares refunded, and they shouldn't.

 

 

I honestly think that's the whole reason why the OP said they were so polite and accommodating...because they half expected this to happen. Not getting thrown off, but getting called down to security. They obviously took precautions to hide it, therefore they didn't want it seen, therefore knew there was a chance it would be discovered.

 

I always thought it odd that they were so cool and calm about it. Or at least what I read made me believe they were.

[Aquahound]

I always thought it odd that they were so cool and calm about it. Or at least what I read made me believe they were.

 

Yep. And the op very clearly told all of us it was regular tobacco and it was in a plastic baggie. The op lied to all of us on those details. Who knows what else.

[marci22]

How is smuggling legal tobacco in a container designed to avoid detection any different from smuggling legal alcohol in a container designed to avoid detection?

[Ocean Boy]

I still feel sorry for her :( Flame me if you wish. I dont CARE!

 

I was on this sailing and she was in my roll call thread. She seemed very nice and sweet and was excited for months only to be taken off the ship a few hours after boarding........I cant even IMAGINE the nightmare and each and everyone here would be upset!

 

The tobacco was deemed not illegal. While the method of smuggling it on board was questionable for sure, what about people that go through all kinds of measures including putting alchol in rumrunners so they dont show up on xray? :rolleyes: IMHO, THIS IS NO DIFFERENT!

 

Again, flame away. I could not care less.

 

I hope she gets ALL of her money back.

 

I would just point out that "smuggling" implies that they were doing something wrong. So, just to make your point valid.... they were not smuggling.;)

[Ocean Boy]

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?

It is 6:24 PM on th east coast as I type this.

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

Once again, each person is going to believe what they want to believe, however here seem to be the facts:

 

1. This party went through the trouble of purchasing a fake-bottomed can to take with them on this trip. It's not like every household just has one laying about, it's a special purchase item. I have seen them in The Container Store and I always assume that those that purchase them either have really nice jewelry, lots of cash, or something naughty.:eek:

 

2. Husband made a conscious decision to pack a supposedly legal substance in a very suspicious, hidden location. It has no real dollar value, so I doubt he was worried it would be stolen. It is supposedly legal, so there's no reason to hide it.

 

Looking at FACTS # 1 & #2, one of two assumptions can be made:

 

A. Husband was either foolish or bored, and he packed in this way just to see what would happen

 

OR

 

B. Husband was testing this packing method to see of he could get away with the legal stuff, so he would know his chances with the less legal stuff in the future.

 

You tell me which seems like the more logical scenario??:rolleyes:

[nellydean]

How is smuggling legal tobacco in a container designed to avoid detection any different from smuggling legal alcohol in a container designed to avoid detection?

 

It's not, but all these smug cruise line vigilantes are squirming with delight because they think the OP got outed.

 

If RCI lied about the tobacco testing positive as an illegal substance, when it clearly didn't, and lied about destroying it, then they could easily lie about other things.

 

I think the couple should sue because, once it tested negative, they should have been allowed back onto the ship to continue their cruise.

[marci22]

The tobacco was deemed not illegal. While the method of smuggling it on board was questionable for sure, what about people that go through all kinds of measures including putting alchol in rumrunners so they dont show up on xray? :rolleyes: IMHO, THIS IS NO DIFFERENT!

 

Again, flame away. I could not care less.

 

I hope she gets ALL of her money back.

 

I agree with this.

[nellydean]

2. Husband made a conscious decision to pack a supposedly legal substance in a very suspicious, hidden location. It has no real dollar value, so I doubt he was worried it would be stolen. It is supposedly legal, so there's no reason to hide it.

 

Looking at FACTS # 1 & #2, one of two assumptions can be made:

 

A. Husband was either foolish or bored, and he packed in this way just to see what would happen

 

OR

 

B. Husband was testing this packing method to see of he could get away with the legal stuff, so he would know his chances with the less legal stuff in the future.

 

You tell me which seems like the more logical scenario??:rolleyes:

 

This is defamation of the highest order, I suggest you edit your post

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

And one final thought. How many people here think it would be a brilliant idea to pack your baby powder for your cruise in a small rolled-up baggie hidden in a false-bottomed can...raise your hands.;)

[Wilda]

Call me cynical but this story screams of someone trying to see what they can get away with. The thread where she originally complained had people on these boards writing Royal threatening to cancel their cruise and targeting a Port Canaveral employee for being aggressive and difficult. She played EVERYONE! While I would love to assume positive intent the facts are that she:

 

• lied
  
• implicated innocent people trying to do their job (which by the way...is to protect all of us)
  
• lied again
  

Companies big and small have the right to sever a relationship with customers considered to be "high risk". Given that none of us knows the actual intent of this man...if it was your company would you risk it????

[Debde]

It is 6:24 PM on th east coast as I type this.

 

You're cracking me up!!! :D

[Debde]

And one final thought. How many people here think it would be a brilliant idea to pack your baby powder for your cruise in a small rolled-up baggie hidden in a false-bottomed can...raise your hands.;)

 

but should you be thrown off the ship if you do!!! :p

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

This is defamation of the highest order, I suggest you edit your post

 

Thank you Clarence Darrow.