The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[Big_G]

When you say liar, are you referring to the people that were booted off, or to RCI, whose account of the events directly opposes the police record? :rolleyes:

 

I would say the liar that was tossed off the ship and then posted about 60 times trying drum up sympathy for their own flight of stupidity. I suppose RCI could have had a communication breakdown in the story but they didn't come to CC and outright try to deceive people.:rolleyes::D

 

I wonder if she actually sent the police report to RCI or was that another lie?

[Aquahound]

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.

 

This keeps getting stated. The op lied about what it was. All that seems to have been proven is that it was not marijuana.

 

You cannot prove a substance to not be illegal.

[BeagleOne]

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:

 

That analogy doesn't hold. The "baby powder in a baggie in the hidden compartment" analogy was closer to what seems to have happened here.

[Ocean Boy]

That analogy doesn't hold. The "baby powder in a baggie in the hidden compartment" analogy was closer to what seems to have happened here.

 

And don't forget the razor blade that was added in a few posts later.

[Pushka]

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.

 

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:

[Capt_BJ]

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?

 

you will be IN the US geographically , but that is not the final answer

 

"country I am IN" has different meanings in the legal world

 

Once you cross the brow you are in the realm of international law

 

this falls in the legal term of 'jurisdiction' which has multiple components - person, place, and offense as I was taught it, in prep' to enforce it.

 

if you prefer to ignor the international aspects of ships you are free to do so .. until you get into court. (what court?)

[Pushka]

This keeps getting stated. The op lied about what it was. All that seems to have been proven is that it was not marijuana.

 

You cannot prove a substance to not be illegal.

 

You are merely discussing semantics now. Better watch out for your talcum powder on your next trip.

[loubetti]

The reality is: I have seen no official statements from this couple or RCI. Just web posts and a piece of news put up on this site. I tend to go with an overreaction, and side with the couple involved, even after reading about how the tobacco was taken on board. Probably not the best thing to do in the post 9/11 era, where paranoia is prevalent, and security want to be "heroes".

 

Otherwise, the captain, depending upon how he might want to be judged by "corporate", is KING. His word is law, same as on an airplane. Doesn't mater what country. If you have boarded my ship or plane, I am in command. Frankly, I'm not sure that the captain ever heard about it.

 

My opinion is that the husband chose the wrong way to bring a legal substance on the ship, and a "9/11 hero" security person decided to make a big deal of it. Who know's what was said to the captain. We will probably never get the true story!

[Aquahound]

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:

 

But how do you know your side to be facts? You don't. None of us were there and falsehoods have been stated by both the op and RCI. The only fact we know so far is that we don't know the facts.

[Pushka]

The reality is: I have seen no official statements from this couple or RCI. Just web posts and a piece of news put up on this site. I tend to go with an overreaction, and side with the couple involved, even after reading about how the tobacco was taken on board. Probably not the best thing to do in the post 9/11 era, where paranoia is prevalent, and security want to be "heroes".

 

Otherwise, the captain, depending upon how he might want to be judged by "corporate", is KING. His word is law, same as on an airplane. Doesn't mater what country. If you have boarded my ship or plane, I am in command. Frankly, I'm not sure that the captain ever heard about it.

 

My opinion is that the husband chose the wrong way to bring a legal substance on the ship, and a "9/11 hero" security person decided to make a big deal of it. Who know's what was said to the captain. We will probably never get the true story!

 

I love this post!

[Aquahound]

You are merely discussing semantics now. Better watch out for your talcum powder on your next trip.

 

I don't have to. It won't be concealed in a fake bottom can of hairspray.

[CruisingMachine]

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

 

It sure wasn't on me. I think anything related to legal matters is "wasted on you". LOL

[Pushka]

But how do you know your side to be facts? You don't. None of us were there and falsehoods have been stated by both the op and RCI. The only fact we know so far is that we don't know the facts.

 

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

[Pushka]

I don't have to. It won't be concealed in a fake bottom can of hairspray.

 

You think that will protect you?

[Aquahound]

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

 

 

I agree. But same goes for the op, doesn't it?

[johneeo]

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

 

Not slippery at all.

 

It is flat out unequivocally wrong.

[Big_G]

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.

 

RCI said it was in their checked luggage. The dive bag was probably a lie too.:rolleyes:

[PH8]

 

I wonder if she actually sent the police report to RCI or was that another lie?

Apparentally CC got a copy of it..guess it's public record??:confused:

 

"A police incident report acquired by Cruise Critic corroborates Harvey's comments"

[BeachChik]

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:

 

This post doesn't even make sense.

[emelvee]

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.

I pack a case of wine in my wife's underwear.

 

 

I'm glad she doesn't read this board.

[Pushka]

I agree. But same goes for the op, doesn't it?

 

Not really. RCL have stated that this couple carried onboard, and tried to conceal, an illegal substance. It was apparently proven later that the substance was not THC so in fact the couple did not commit an illegal act as far as can be proven, but RCL is standing by their statement that they did bring on an illegal substance. That is a rather significant issue to me.

 

The couple on the other hand, have not been totally upfront in that the item was put in that hairspray can, but given the item was not an illegal item, then really, I don't see that has any relevance to their "presumed" guilt. Stupid perhaps, but illegal intent - Nope.

[EVALUATOR]

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.

 

My point is they are being punished (better word than convicted) on what illegal things they might be able to do.

 

Was is stupid on their part, yes. But it wasn't illegal. And I don't see how it was against RCI's guest conduct policy.

 

I think they are due a refund... but that's all.

[BeagleOne]

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:

 

I NEVER said I had all the facts, or know exactly what happened.

 

Have you seen the port report? If so, please provide a link. All I know is what I've read on the CC website. RCI says one thing, the OP says something else (and has been shown to lie by omission), the port report (allegedly) says something else.

 

How weird 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. AND you state things as factual when you don't know for sure whether or not they are. :rolleyes:

 

emelvee, what do you pack in your OWN underwear?

[Big_G]

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

What rule did these folks break?

 

The stupidity rule.:rolleyes:

[Scotty G]

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:

Nothing against you but why do people who continue to post here refer to "facts". There are only published accounts (by the OP and CC) and none by any authority. This CC thread as well as the one started by the OP are nothing but a Soap Opera. We should all just eat our popcorn and relax.