The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[Puffinater]

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

 

Yes, he is here in the U.S. but I think that poster is from across the pond where he probaly holds little to no interest. Just my guess please do not skewer me.

[Aquahound]

And the OP also stated this in the other thread.

 

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

 

Now that it has been revealed it wasn't regular tobacco, I would be willing to bet money I know what happened, and I am basing this theory on experience.

 

The hookah tobacco they supposedly purchased is green and leafy, not brown like tobacco. They tested it for THC but it tested negative. Because of the circumstances we now know, the authorities probably thought is was spice, an illegal cannabinoid that looks exactly the same and currently has no field test. The op could argue it all she wanted but without the original container, how were they to know?

 

The op was not arrested because they can't establish probable cause due to the lack of a field test. The Captain was probably offered the correct findings along with the suspicions and therefore denied boarding, which explains the "high risk" comment. And as for the police report, it reflects facts, not theories. The substance tested negative for THC. That's it.

[johneeo]

I hope they do get a good lawyer and go for it. Whether he hid his legal substance in a baggie, can or his wife's underwear is irrelevant. It is a legal substance.

And all this speculation again about his motives, how do you know?

If people were denied boarding for what they might do, ships would be half empty.

 

Hmmmm.

 

They might have used that hair spray can to smuggle a nuclear bomb back on board.

[johneeo]

 

The op was not arrested because they can't establish probable cause due to the lack of a field test. The Captain was probably offered the correct findings along with the suspicions and therefore denied boarding.

 

Nice.

 

Guilty until proven innocent.

[Aquahound]

Nice.

 

Guilty until proven innocent.

 

No. In the words of RCI, "high risk."

 

Again, it's just a theory from the info I have gathered in these threads. Nothing more.

[newcruiser1573]

I'm amazed by the number of people making assumptions about the husband smuggling in the future. People can not be prosecuted for what they might do. This couple did not commit a crime or break any of the RIC rules. So what if he used a Baggie or a hairspray can, that's not illegal either. I find this to be know different than those who smuggle alcohol on. Do we assume they are going to buy alcohol at port and smuggle that on. No! I think that there are a bunch of judgemental people who are using stereotypes to make assumptions about people. Just because something in a baggie, doesn't make it bad. I'm sure marijuana can be put in more things than a baggie.

[marci22]

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...

 

I think that when you get into that 'what someone might do' train of thought it's a slippery slope for everyone.

[KathyPet]

I am still supporting the OP. If they are denied boarding for attempting to smuggle what still appears to be a perfectly legal substance on board then all those passengers who are caught attempting to smuggle liquor (also a perfectly legal substance) on board should also be denied boarding.. What would the comments be like if the couple had attempted to smuggle liquor on board by putting in a hair spray can with a false bottom. Does this make them "high risk"? Would they have been denied boarding. I seriously doubt it. It doesn't matter what the substance was the fact remains that it is a legal substance.

 

I hope she sues.

[don24]

You did. This poster called another poster trailer trash (TT). I do not care about punctuation, sentence structure etc. on these boards, but I find it disgusting for someone to judge someone as TT.

I take back my statement, and am sorry . It seems we are actually in agreement that others have no right judging each other on these boards. I didnt relate TT to trailer trash.

[BeagleOne]

How different it might have been if the OP's first post had been, "Hey, we got tossed off the ship because my husband did something really stupid, but not illegal, when he packed his bag. (Then truthful description of incident.) What are our options here? They refunded our port excursions fees etc. but they won't refund our fare. Yes, we were stupid, but we don't think we should have been thrown off the ship, and RCI customer service has not been helpful. Ideas?"

 

I doubt there would have been over 1,000 replies, but RCI could have looked pretty bad, and the OP would have gotten a lot of sympathy. Now...well, she's just a liar, and, even if RCI should have let them back on board, she and her husband aren't very sympathetic characters.

 

Nobody's talking about prosecuting the OP and her husband. "Innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" don't apply to boarding a cruise ship.

[johneeo]

, the Captain can deem you a security risk and put you off HIS ship, and it is decision alone.

 

There are laws in the US.

 

While in the US, the Captain must abide by US laws, he is not god.

 

So, he can make any decisions he desires, wrong, right, or indifferent. However, there is a judicial process that could have repercussions for bad decisions on his part.

 

BTW, it is not totally his ship. It is RCI's ship, and RCI has responsibilities to deliver a product for those that have paid for it.

 

According to you, the captain, if he so desires could have executed the perps and tossed their bodies at sea.

[Aquahound]

I think that when you get into that 'what someone might do' train of thought it's a slippery slope for everyone.

 

The problem with the alcohol metaphor is, a foreign flagged vessel entering the United States is subject to intense Customs scrutiny. Alcohol is not a big deal. Drugs are. Showing the willingness to smuggle alcohol, at worst, violates policy. Showing the intent to conceal drugs is something totally different. I know we do not know exactly what was in that can, but it showed a willingness to conceal a substance.

 

By the way, in the original thread, I was on the op's side. Things have changed a little and I am better understanding RCI's decision.

[Pushka]

WHY THE NEED for this substance - whatever it was?

Why isn't a cruise enough? If you need to smoke - whatever he was "smuggling" on board - do it at home. I really don't see why anyone is upset with RCI. It's a friggin' CRUISE! It's enough fun w/o whatever tobacco he was hiding. Have a few drinks if you need them. Geez, people. :cool:

 

Gosh, remember that the substance wasn't illegal. He wants to smoke a legal product on his holiday. The facts are nothing more nothing less.

 

Because it's a free country and one should be allowed to do whatever they want on their vacation as long as it's legal, breaks no rules and doesn't infringe on others rights. And that's exactly what they did.

 

Yes.

 

The last thread got locked so I couldn't respond to those who said they were banging their heads on a wall saying I didn't get their argument. I got their argument just fine but dont agree with it. So i can bash my head against the wall too.

 

Deal with the facts people and not the assumptions and guesswork. He used a hairspray can that had a concealed bottom. Is using one of these illegal in the USA? Nope. In the concealed bottom was some legal smoking product. Again, this is not an illegal act. The Captain decided that it indicated someone of high risk. Heaven help any of us that look or behave differently to others. For a cruise line dealing with a multitude of cultures it is facing serious discrimination issues if it ventures down that path. And one day they might just do it to the person who is capable of really making them pay for it.

[CruisingMachine]

One thing seems odd about that dummy run idea: If I were going to try to sneak anything past security in a fake can of hair spray, I would have put it in the utility case next to my shampoo, the shave cream, conditioner etc. Putting it in the dive bag was illogical, for someone attempting to conceal the contents. This might incline a judge to go along with the idea that it was just a dumb move, and maybe not a dummy run.

 

This isn't going to a judge, we don't know if it was in a dive bag or not and makes no difference. The captain had a judgment call to make. Case closed.

[sredish]

Yes, he is here in the U.S. but I think that poster is from across the pond where he probaly holds little to no interest. Just my guess please do not skewer me.

 

Then wouldn't that be a Puffin-kabob? :D

[marci22]

The problem with the alcohol metaphor is, a foreign flagged vessel entering the United States is subject to intense Customs scrutiny. Alcohol is not a big deal. Drugs are. Showing the willingness to smuggle alcohol, at worst, violates policy. Showing the intent to conceal drugs is something totally different. I know we do not know exactly what was in that can, but it showed a willingness to conceal a substance.

 

By the way, in the original thread, I was on the op's side. Things have changed a little and I am better understanding RCI's decision.

 

And I don't fault the captain for denying them boarding, or even banning them from their line, but I think they should be reimbursed as they did nothing illegal.

 

I'm going to be more careful about how I pack my own prescription medications when I travel. Usually I just toss an assortment in one bottle.

[macfin]

since reading the earlier posts on this topic, and hence finding out that this may have resembled a substance that is illegal, and it was not that susbstance, the person's should have been able to cruise after the substance as confiscated and destroyed and the "can" was destroyed as well....with that being said....how is it that hairspary and nsucjh can not be carried on a plane ?? but allowed to be in a person's possesion boarding a cruise ship? What is said can was a illegal device? what if it had the potential to cause serious harm to fellow passengers? i commend the RCI security detail for recognizing a potential something that looked odd. But how much of this stuff goes un detected...maybe time for stricter security procedures ???? JUST SAYING....PLEASE do not frag me...this is a question? and my own opinion...

[Aquahound]

And I don't fault the captain for denying them boarding, or even banning them from their line, but I think they should be reimbursed as they did nothing illegal.

 

I'm going to be more careful about how I pack my own prescription medications when I travel. Usually I just toss an assortment in one bottle.

 

Well, in all fairness, it just couldn't be proven to be illegal. That substance may very well have been illegal. Again, all it was tested for was THC.

 

But I agree with you. Without that proof, RCI probably should completely reimburse. However, we still don't know all the facts. It was said in the last thread details would eventually come out that make us all see things a little different. Some of that has happened, but there still may be more of those facts out there. Only time will tell.

[BeagleOne]

Heaven help any of us that look or behave differently to others. For a cruise line dealing with a multitude of cultures it is facing serious discrimination issues if it ventures down that path. And one day they might just do it to the person who is capable of really making them pay for it.

 

Denying someone passage because the captain has a legitimate reason, based on the passenger's ACTIONS, to consider him high-risk, is FAR different from discriminating against someone based on their race or culture.

[LarissaRose]

I think that when you get into that 'what someone might do' train of thought it's a slippery slope for everyone.

 

IMO if RC wouldn't let them back on the ship they were indeed making these 'what someone might do' assumptions, by labeling them 'high risk' while not yet doing anything illegal, or even against RC's policy.

[FLHugh]

My Gawd, pot comes ashore in Florida by the tons every month. Each discovered shipment gets about 30 seconds on the local evening news. This baggie of Hooka must be the most "potent" substance ever found. Just goes to show that PAX really have no "rights" at all, or at least, very little. And I'm booked on Freedom the end of July.

[Pushka]

Denying someone passage because the captain has a legitimate reason, based on the passenger's ACTIONS, to consider him high-risk, is FAR different from discriminating against someone based on their race or culture.

 

Culture determines ones ACTIONS. Its a slippery slope. I just think for a country like USA which prides itself on FREEDOM and deservedly so, that someone can get kicked off a ship just because he might do something wrong when he has done nothing illegal in the first place.

[sredish]

You failed to answer my question, so, let me try again.

 

When I get on the Oasis of the Seas on June 23, what country will I be in?

 

They did...they said "When you are in US Terminal, US law applies..."

[foxgoodrich]

OK, I went back and read the story again. RCI says it was tested [by RCI and observed by PC police] and came up positive. The port security person agrees that "the" test was observed by the police but says that it came up negative. It appears that the RCI lady and the port security lady are talking about the same test. RCI also says "'tobacco' was taken by law enforcement to be destroyed." The port security lady says it was returned to OP's DH. It therefore appears to me that the port security lady is calling the RCI lady a liar. The port security lady appears to be the closest thing we have to a neutral party. In the grand scheme of who to believe, I'm just sayin'.

 

Yeah - this struck me too! You hit the nail on the head - somebody is definitely lying...is it RCI or port security or the PC police????? Just my opinion (which is probably worth less than nothing...) but I think RCI is lying and has gone into CYA mode.

[LarissaRose]

And I don't fault the captain for denying them boarding, or even banning them from their line, but I think they should be reimbursed as they did nothing illegal.

 

This.

 

Like most private businesses, RC probably 'reserves the right to refuse service to any person at their discretion'. The OP and husband did not do anything illegal, if the cruise line deems what they did as 'high risk' it is their choice to deny them boarding (likely will end up with a lawsuit on their hands though...). But I do think that their money should be reimbursed in full since they did not break any policy.