The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[marci22]

I just don't see how someone trying to conceal alcohol is less 'high risk' than someone trying to conceal tobacco. They're both lying. I guess if a large number of people do something wrong/lie about something it's ok.

[Aquahound]

 

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

 

Ever hear of exculpatory evidence? If she wants to sue, she shot herself in the foot with her first thread. She has no lawsuit and she knows it.

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

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

 

Yes, consider it a Stupid Tax.:D

[beer1234]

Hey Cruisin Dawg. I,m a hard person to get a laugh out of but the baby powder baggie thing did it. Thanks for the smile.

[joe6666]

Seems like a few details were left out of Hager350's story http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=4819

 

The cruise line has rules about what can be brought aboard.

What rule did these folks break?

[LarissaRose]

I just don't see how someone trying to conceal alcohol is less 'high risk' than someone trying to conceal tobacco. They're both lying. I guess if a large number of people do something wrong/lie about something it's ok.

 

I would see the logic behind smuggling alcohol as being less 'high risk' because it is not illegal, nor is it evidence of potentially going on a 'dry run' for something that is illegal. Yes, someone might be getting off in ports and smuggling alcohol back on board in the same manner, but this is not illegal. Whereas smuggling tobacco may be evidence for the potential to smuggle illegal things in the future...

[sredish]

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

 

You apparently haven't ever read what's said about people during MDR formal wear debates if you think that was "defamation of the highest order"...:rolleyes:

 

And honestly folks...I can't believe nobody hasn't used the "You can't HANDLE the truth!!!" line yet... :D

 

[sharpasice]

Best way is to carry with you in carry on. By (and yes now ill use the word) Law, they have to be in their original container with your name on them. This doesn't matter if your on a RCCL cruise or any other cruise line or flying or even just crossing a border. It's a federal law.

 

Where in the world did you find this..not only did I google the law on this and could not find what you are saying but this is directly from the TSA website on medications..they don't even have to be labeled and they are allowed in daily dose containers.

 

Medications

 

All medications in any form or type (for instance, pills, injectables, or homeopathic) and associated supplies (syringes, Sharps disposal container, pre-loaded syringes, jet injectors, pens, infusers, etc.) are allowed through the security checkpoint once they have been screened. Atropens, an auto-injection system that can help treat many emergency conditions (low heart rate, breathing problems, and excess saliva related to insecticide, nerve gas or mushroom poisoning) are also allowed.

 

We do not require that your medications be labeled.

 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) migraine inhalers and CO2 refills.

 

Medications in daily dosage containers are allowed through the checkpoint once they have been screened.

 

Medication and related supplies are normally X-rayed. However, as a customer service, TSA now allows you the option of requesting a visual inspection of your medication and associated supplies.

• You must request a visual inspection before the screening process begins; otherwise your medications and supplies will undergo X-ray inspection.
  
• If you would like to take advantage of this option, please have your medication and associated supplies separated from your other property in a separate pouch/bag when you approach the Security Officer at the walk-through metal detector.
  
• Request the visual inspection and hand your medication pouch/bag to the Security Officer.
  
• In order to prevent contamination or damage to medication and associated supplies and/or fragile medical materials, you will be asked at the security checkpoint to display, handle, and repack your own medication and associated supplies during the visual inspection process.
  
• Any medication and/or associated supplies that cannot be cleared visually must be submitted for X-ray screening. If you refuse, you will not be permitted to carry your medications and related supplies into the sterile area.
  

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

Hey Cruisin Dawg. I,m a hard person to get a laugh out of but the baby powder baggie thing did it. Thanks for the smile.

 

We aim to please....:D

[Wilda]

Seems like a few details were left out of Hager350's story http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=4819

 

 

By the way...thanks for posting:) I now have a guaranteed good read for the next couple of days;)

[aurelius180]

The fact still remains that they weren't denied boarding over tobacco but rather because they were deemed "high risk." The husband all but admitted as much in the article by claiming the tobacco looked suspiciously like marijuana and then tried to conceal it. Why not just leave it in the original tin?

[Cruising89143]

The fact still remains that they weren't denied boarding over tobacco but rather because they were deemed "high risk." The husband all but admitted as much in the article by claiming the tobacco looked suspiciously like marijuana and then tried to conceal it. Why not just leave it in the original tin?

 

And the OP also stated this in the other thread.

 

That's the big question but I think most of us know why.:)

[CruisingMouse]

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:

 

 

Well after reading the longgggggg thread the OP originally started and now this one. I take your option B, but I also now believe OP was as aware of what was going on for the trial run and that she probably joins her DH in enjoying the real stuff.

 

I am even willing to bet, that she packed the luggage as most women of the household do. If she was totally unaware of anything the DH did I would have sailed without him. Wouldn't be giving up my cruise for stupid, anniversary or not. But they don't fly?? HMM gee why not. She left out allot of facts from her original thread...why??? guilty that's why.

 

I don't buy that she left out details because she loves him, or was protecting him, I think her soul 1 purpose of starting the thread was to get everyone on her side and against Royal to hopefully get enough attention that Royal would cop up some hush money.

 

For those that wonder if OP will pop on here now and comment and say sorry for misleading us all, not likely...is she reading absolutely!! Probably sitting back watching the # of threads climb up again while she is smoking her pipe that matches her DH's.

 

I think they did break the conduct rules, they tried to conceal making them suspicious and a possible hazard to other paxs sailing. Where they high risk yes they were, don't need a fancy container for plain oh tobacco.

[nellydean]

Thank you Clarence Darrow.

 

I've no idea who that is so, whatever the joke, it's wasted on me

[Homosassa]

It would be interesting to know if when testing the contents of the bag for THC, swabs of the interior of the can, the pipe bowl and the outside of the baggy were also tested and came out positive for THC.

 

Each swab test may be contained in a separate (sample #) report and may not have made it into the news reports.

[Ocean Boy]

I'm not sure we're allowed to discuss Frosty and his bottom here....:D:eek:

 

Reminds me of a Hogan's Heroes episode where people were climbing into snowman with a false bottom into an escape tunnel. Obviously, my mind is filled with stupid trivia tonight.

[Beachin2]

What a soap opera!

[aurelius180]

And the OP also stated this in the other thread.

 

That's the big question but I think most of us know why.:)

 

I know. And playing dumb by saying on here it's just tobacco is disingenuous at best. The husband already confirmed his intent by the quote in the article.

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

I've no idea who that is so, whatever the joke, it's wasted on me

 

WOW!! Try Google, he's a rather important historical figure.;)

[PH8]

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.

That's how I feel too..........hard to know what was true and what wasn't with her posts..

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

I've no idea who that is so, whatever the joke, it's wasted on me

 

I'm also here to educate, apparently.....

 

Jump to: navigation, search

Clarence Darrow

Clarence Seward Darrow ca. 1922BornApril 18, 1857(1857-04-18)

Kinsman Township, Trumbull County, OhioDiedMarch 13, 1938(1938-03-13) (aged 80)

Chicago, IllinoisCause of deathPulmonary heart disease[1]Alma materAllegheny College, University of Michigan Law SchoolOccupationLawyerClarence Seward Darrow (April 18, 1857 – March 13, 1938) was an American lawyer and leading member of the American Civil Liberties Union, best known for defending teenage thrill killers Leopold and Loeb in their trial for murdering 14-year-old Robert "Bobby" Franks (1924) and defending John T. Scopes in the Scopes "Monkey" Trial (1925), in which he opposed William Jennings Bryan (statesman, noted orator, and 3-time presidential candidate). Called a "sophisticated country lawyer",[2] he remains notable for his wit and agnosticism, which marked him as one of the most famous American lawyers and civil libertarians.[3]

[Ocean Boy]

I've no idea who that is so, whatever the joke, it's wasted on me

 

It made me laugh out loud!:D:D:D:D:D

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

It made me laugh out loud!:D:D:D:D:D

 

MUAH!! Kisses!!!:D

[Pushka]

Seems like a few details were left out of Hager350's story http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=4819

 

So, using a means of concealing something that isn't illegal, is a crime and violation of their policy?

While this could have been stated in the Original thread, it in no way reflects any crime. Next time you hide some piece of jewellery or money in a concealed pouch, you'd better be careful you aren't accused of theft!

[tugboat]

Sorry if this has been covered I don't want to read the whole thread, clearly this was a test run to see if they could get on the ship going or coming with the real thing in the can. Now they know don't try it with the real drugs.:eek: