The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[Ocean Boy]

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.

 

And that is pretty much exactly what the cruise contract says.

[CruisingMachine]

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

 

And you still don't get it after all these pages? It matters not whether it was legal or illegal. Captain declared them "high risk". Game. Set. Match. There is nothing to "sue" over.

[johneeo]

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.;)

 

Big difference between what is stupid (lot of that out there) and what is blatantly illegal.

[CruisingMachine]

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.;)

 

Only if you pack your razor blade with it, and that act all "what?!" when they say "what is this?!"

[BeagleOne]

Culture determines ones ACTIONS.

 

Not always.

 

Discrimination based on race etc. is illegal. Discrimination based on actions is not. And what culture is it where packing something that might or might not have tested positive for an illegal substance (since there are different versions of the story out there) in a hidden compartment of a fake can of hairspray and trying to sneak it aboard a cruise ship is a smart thing to do?

 

We'll probably never know, but I really wonder if something the husband did or said after the discovery was the real reason they were denied passage. Maybe he got belligerent or made some threats.

[johneeo]

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.

 

Correct.

 

However, the RCI Cheerleaders have deemed the Captain to be god, and therefore, he has total dictatorial power, US laws do not apply, and if he deems someone with a turban to be a threat, he is totally correct to ban him and his family from cruising.

 

Same thing with me, a fat beedy eyed sweaty guy, I could be banned for that, and if that happened, the RCI Cheerleaders would be totally supportive of their Captain.

 

Pretty pathetic in my humble opinion.

[CruisingMachine]

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

 

Geeez. You are NOT a lawyer and you did NOT stay at a Holiday Inn last night, did you?

[don24]

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?

not sure ,but it will be on private property not a public street and as such at the discreation of the owner of that property. If someone comes to your home with an object although legal that is objectional to you do you have the right to ask them to leave or not. If and i mean if the captain believed that the purpose of the action to try to sneak on an item was in fact a trial run.Then his actions where to protect his company.If you believe or have knowledge that an illegal action is about to happen you have the legal responsabilty to stop it or report it he choose to cut it off at the head.

[EVALUATOR]

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.

 

So, on the way to the port, I had a bologna sandwich. I put it in a plastic sandwich bag. I ate the sandwich and put the empty baggie in my pocket. While tipping the porter, I dropped the baggie. Security saw it and tested the powder in it for cocaine. It tested negative. It was flour off the bottom of the bread. But because there is no field test for flour, and the sandwich bag can be used for putting drugs in, I'm high risk???

 

Every LEO out there can only dream conviction was this easy.:eek:

[I cruise 4 cheap]

anyone on here who is siding with royal on this needs to give their head a shake!

 

both side left details out and or lied about details

 

final report seems to state the contents were legal to have.

 

therefore contents legal = no breach of policy!

no rules state what you can or can not carry legal products in.

 

i personally hate it when lawyers get in the mix, but this is one well suited for them. i see big bucks coming the way of the couple kicked off the ship.

 

it has been posted here already that others have been caught with far worse and been allowed to cruise on.

 

the whole thing smells of poor comunication and big power trip!

 

:mad:

[foxgoodrich]

In light of the most recent stories about terrorist plotting to hijack a cruise ship, we can only expect the cruise lines to take a tougher stand on ANY attempt to smuggle OR conceal items. Even if it only involves concealment of legal items, which could be seen as a trial run to check out how observant the screeners are, they will take a dim view. For that reason, the Captain can deem you a security risk and put you off HIS ship, and it is decision alone.

 

This might make sense if it was an RPG concealed in the can, but the rocket launcher would be rather obvious in the luggage, don't you think?

 

If I walk into Macy's with a big purse, is that a trial run?

 

If I stick stuff in my shoes in my suitcase, is that concealment?

 

Just sayin' (askin')...

Judy

[Ocean Boy]

Big difference between what is stupid (lot of that out there) and what is blatantly illegal.

 

Unfortunately, both situations can lead to unwanted consequences.

[jonbgd]

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

Once you embark on the Oasis you will be in the Bahamas;)

[Pushka]

Not always.

 

For the purposes of this discussion, I might do an action as an Australian that is completely objectionable to you as a USA citizen. But which is in no way illegal. But it could get me bumped off the boat.

 

For those of you saying that RCL is in the right, aren't you just a tiny bit concerned that RCL has put out a public statement that the item was illegal, when in fact, it wasn't! And aren't you concerned that they stated it was destroyed, when it wasn't! Talk about significantly large holes in their story! And ones which completely alter the legality of what the person has now been accused by RCL of doing! RCL have public ally stated they had illegal drugs. When in fact they were innocent of that. Lawyers will be scurrying around on this one!

[Aquahound]

So, on the way to the port, I had a bologna sandwich. I put it in a plastic sandwich bag. I ate the sandwich and put the empty baggie in my pocket. While tipping the porter, I dropped the baggie. Security saw it and tested the powder in it for cocaine. It tested negative. It was flour off the bottom of the bread. But because there is no field test for flour, and the sandwich bag can be used for putting drugs in, I'm high risk???

 

Every LEO out there can only dream conviction was this easy.:eek:

 

Oh, come on E. We have a long history of being reasonable with one another, right? Your example isn't exactly the same. Plastic baggies are most often used for sandwiches and flour isnt something you snort. Plus, it was in your pocket, not hidden in a fake bottom can.

 

But I didn't say anything about conviction. All I gave was a scenario that very well could have played out.

[Charles4515]

Great post Paul. Just because she was such a nice person on the roll calls doesn't mean that she can do no wrong. The fact that she left out a major part of the story is very telling to me. Also, why go to great lengths to hide something like this? Why not just place in a normal container in a carry on and let it go through security? Personally I'm glad that security was good enough to catch this. It could have been something far more serious.

 

Of course those simple words come into play once again. Common sense..................................... :)

 

And why bring hookah tobacco and no hookah? If I were the Captain I would consider what they did very fishy. That they were up to no good. And I would say no go.......they don't have to wait until something bad happens cause they are a business, not a country.

 

The refund question is another matter. Royal may or may not decide to give a refund. That is for Royal to decide. Or they may be forced to. I don't care one way or another if a refund is given. I think denying passage was the right thing in this case even if they end up giving a refund.

[Ocean Boy]

So, on the way to the port, I had a bologna sandwich. I put it in a plastic sandwich bag. I ate the sandwich and put the empty baggie in my pocket. While tipping the porter, I dropped the baggie. Security saw it and tested the powder in it for cocaine. It tested negative. It was flour off the bottom of the bread. But because there is no field test for flour, and the sandwich bag can be used for putting drugs in, I'm high risk???

 

Every LEO out there can only dream conviction was this easy.:eek:

 

The next time you cruise just tell the driver who drops you off that you will be right back and ask him to wait for you.;):D

[I cruise 4 cheap]

So, on the way to the port, I had a bologna sandwich. I put it in a plastic sandwich bag. I ate the sandwich and put the empty baggie in my pocket. While tipping the porter, I dropped the baggie. Security saw it and tested the powder in it for cocaine. It tested negative. It was flour off the bottom of the bread. But because there is no field test for flour, and the sandwich bag can be used for putting drugs in, I'm high risk???

 

Every LEO out there can only dream conviction was this easy.:eek:

 

 

glad there are some people on here that think things thru not just jump to one side or the other!

 

:cool:

[Ocean Boy]

And why bring hookah tobacco and no hookah? If I were the Captain I would consider what they did very fishy. That they were up to no good. And I would say no go.......they don't have to wait until something bad happens cause they are a business, not a country.

 

The refund question is another matter. Royal may or may not decide to give a refund. That is for Royal to decide. Or they may be forced to. I don't care one way or another if a refund is given. I think denying passage was the right thing in this case even if they end up giving a refund.

 

We agree!:eek::D

[BeagleOne]

For the purposes of this discussion, I might do an action as an Australian that is completely objectionable to you as a USA citizen. But which is in no way illegal. But it could get me bumped off the boat.

 

No. If your action is objectionable, but not illegal NOR AGAINST THE CRUISE LINE'S CONTRACT OR CODE OF CONDUCT, and if it doesn't render you a "high-risk" passenger, then no, you wouldn't be "bumped off the boat".

[Charles4515]

They'll spend more money than the cruise is worth and get nothing. If the Captain of a vessel feels you're a risk, they have the power to deny boarding. Case closed.

 

For those of you that feel for the OP, she is a liar. She said the substance was in a baggy in the pocket of her husbands dive bag not in a hide-away can. She said that an over aggressive woman security officer found it and was trying to get them booted to get a $50 bonus. As Grand Isle Joe said, "You can't fix stupid." No sympathy here.

 

As for losing business because of this episode, why would anyone not cruise with RCI based on the words of a liar?

 

In addition she accused them of wanting the cabin because they overbooked.

 

No sympathy here either.

[mickeysgal]

No she had the option of still going without him, but chose not to. Can't blame her for not wanting to cruise alone for her anniversary. But that arguments gone.

 

Oh, I must've missed that part. It wasn't in the article, and I didn't read entirely through that ridiculous thread.

 

The article states - "But because they were denied boarding for breaching the guest conduct policy, Royal Caribbean's Martinez says they will not receive a refund for the cruise, on which the couple say they spent almost $3,000."

 

Her husband was denied boarding for breaking the guest conduct policy. Not Mary. She should be refunded.

 

In her original post on the other thread she very clearly said they BOTH were denied boarding. She didn't choose not to board. Which to this day, I don't understand. It was his luggage, his tobacco, his now-revealed container. Why was SHE denied boarding? This question was asked over and over, but was never answered.

[Pushka]

No. If your action is objectionable, but not illegal NOR AGAINST THE CRUISE LINE'S CONTRACT OR CODE OF CONDUCT, and if it doesn't render you a "high-risk" passenger, then no, you wouldn't be "bumped off the boat".

 

What did this couple represent a high risk for when they did nothing illegal in the first place?

 

Is there something in the contract that states that tobacco can't be placed in a concealed container? I must have missed that.

[BeagleOne]

 

For those of you saying that RCL is in the right, aren't you just a tiny bit concerned that RCL has put out a public statement that the item was illegal, when in fact, it wasn't! And aren't you concerned that they stated it was destroyed, when it wasn't! Talk about significantly large holes in their story! And ones which completely alter the legality of what the person has now been accused by RCL of doing! RCL have public ally stated they had illegal drugs. When in fact they were innocent of that. Lawyers will be scurrying around on this one!

 

How do you know what really happened? Were you there? We've heard one thing from the OP, another from RCI, and another from some unnamed "port authority". NONE OF US HERE knows exactly what happened.

[Rockfordcruiser]

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.
  

 

Yes that is what TSA site says. But when entering back into the US you do not go thru TSA first do you? You come back thru US customs. I will post the link to US customs and what it says about prescription drugs. You need to have a prescript for what ever you have on your person's. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm109734.htm