The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[Pushka]

A major issue here in Atlanta right now. Just watched yet another story on the news this evening. Kids were/are able to purchase it at convenience stores even though it's now illegal due to the way it's packaged and sold.

 

Now you see, this is exactly what I was referring to earlier about different cultures and countries. I don't think spice :confused: has even been reported in Australia so if I was visiting in the USA I could have picked up some of this from a convenience store and been totally oblivious that I was breaking the law. Chuck it in a bag, try to board a cruise or a plane and find myself arrested or refused boarding.

[aurelius180]

You really need to get over yourself with this cheerleader BS. Just because someone has a different opinion does make them a cheerleader.

 

 

You're better off pounding your head into the wall than speaking rationally with him. Of all the arguments, sorry discussions, that have happened around here this is one of the tamest. But some people won't even accept that others have a differing opinion.

[Rockfordcruiser]

You darn well better.

 

According the the RCI Cheerleaders, the Captain is god.

 

If the Captain finds you with empty rumrunners, he could easily conclude your intent is to use them to smuggle alcohol in a future port.

 

It is then his duty to remove you, and probably your whole family from the cruise.

 

Yep the Capt is GOD... And i'm a cheer leader. And if if this happened on a carnival ship or other cruise line I would still feel the same way.

[bajathree]

For those questing Paul's theory so much maybe you should read this:

 

Synthetic cannabis is a psychoactive herbal and chemical product that, when consumed, allegedly mimics the effects of cannabis. It is best known by the brand names K2[1] and Spice,[2] both of which have largely become genericized trademarks used to refer to any synthetic cannabis product. (It is also for this reason that synthetic cannabis is often referred to as spice product, due to the latter.) A type of synthetic cannabis sold in Australasia is known as Kronic.

Research on the safety of synthetic cannabis is only now becoming available. Initial studies are focused on the role of synthetic cannabis and psychosis. It seems likely that synthetic cannabis can precipitate psychosis and in some cases it is prolonged. These studies suggest that synthetic cannabinoid intoxication is associated with acute psychosis, worsening of previously stable psychotic disorders, and also may have the ability to trigger a chronic (long-term) psychotic disorder among vulnerable individuals such as those with a family history of mental illness.[3][4]

When synthetic cannabis blends first went on sale in the early 2000s, it was thought that they achieved an effect through a mixture of legal herbs. Laboratory analysis in 2008 showed that this is not the case, and that they in fact contain synthetic cannabinoids that act on the body in a similar way to cannabinoids naturally found in cannabis, such as THC. A large and complex variety of synthetic cannabinoids, most often cannabicyclohexanol, JWH-018, JWH-073, or HU-210, are used in an attempt to avoid the laws that make cannabis illegal, making synthetic cannabis a designer drug. It has been sold under various brand names, online, in head shops, and at some gas stations.

It is often marketed as "herbal incense"; however, some brands market their products as "herbal smoking blends". In either case, the products are usually smoked by users. Although synthetic cannabis does not produce positive results in drug tests for cannabis, it is possible to detect its metabolites in human urine. The synthetic cannabinoids contained in synthetic cannabis products have been made illegal in many European countries. On November 24, 2010, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced it would use emergency powers to ban many synthetic cannabinoids within a month.[5] Prior to the announcement, several US states had already made them illegal under state law. As of March 1, 2011, five cannabinoids, JWH-018, JWH-073, CP-47,497, JWH-200, and cannabicyclohexanol are now illegal in the US because these substances have the potential to be extremely harmful and, therefore, pose an imminent hazard to the public safety.[6][7]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_cannabis

[Pushka]

It would be nice if Dan Askin would publish a copy of the report.

 

Yes of course. But from what I am reading here, would it change peoples mind because I am getting the vibe that because the op didn't mention the hairspray can, means that the police finding is irrelevant. To me, it is everything!:confused:

 

OK bajatree, I have heard of synthetic thc here but it isn't known as spice. Thanks for the info.

[BeagleOne]

Cruise critic have received a copy of the report and it confirms the couples story. ;). End of discussion.

 

No, not really. CC should publish the report so we can read it for ourselves and draw our own conclusions. ;)

[Aquahound]

You really need to get over yourself with this cheerleader BS. Just because someone has a different opinion does make them a cheerleader.

 

Agreed. This isn't cheerleading. In fact most of us really gave the op the benefit of the doubt on the other thread. We now know she wasn't truthful. Acknowledging that is not cheerleading.

 

Now you see, this is exactly what I was referring to earlier about different cultures and countries. I don't think spice :confused: has even been reported in Australia so if I was visiting in the USA I could have picked up some of this from a convenience store and been totally oblivious that I was breaking the law. Chuck it in a bag, try to board a cruise or a plane and find myself arrested or refused boarding.

 

Now this is a good point. Florida just outlawed it from sales on April 1. Other states are coming around. Unfortunately, government bureaucracy means it takes time to pass.

 

It is also reasonable to believe that since these laws are so new, not all law enforcement officers are familiar with it yet.

[Big_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:

 

The report said it was not marijuana. It did NOT say the substance was legal. There is no field test for tobacco and there are other tobacco like products that are illegal for which there are no field tests.

[Snookum]

Bottom line it was proven not to be illegal. How can you be thrown off a ship for carrying something legal. Circumstances weren't the best but it was LEGAL!

[richardb]

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.

 

Sue away. RCCL will file for (and receive) an immediate dismissal based on the contract we all agreed to to submit disputes to arbitration. Then she will be out not just her fare, but the filing and attorney fees.

[Pushka]

The report said it was not marijuana. It did NOT say the substance was legal. There is no field test for tobacco and there are other tobacco like products that are illegal for which there are no field tests.

 

In the spirit of discussion :) does anyone get arrested and convicted of using those tobacco like substances that cant be proven to be illegal? You said field tests so I guess you are saying there are lab tests available. But how does this work in the field? Do police report and seize and then later press charges depending on lab tests?

 

As far as the OP goes, do people really think that she would post the original thread if in fact the 'tobacco' was synthetic THC? What would they gain from doing that and in fact, they could end up in a much worse position than simply losing their cruise.

 

I hear that you are saying simply that now many of you think they were carrying synthetic THC that can't be proven but if that was the case then the motivation of the OP posting completely eludes me.

[bajathree]

Bottom line it was proven not to be illegal. How can you be thrown off a ship for carrying something legal. Circumstances weren't the best but it was LEGAL!

 

Not quite accurate..."A chemical test was conducted on the herb, which showed negative for THC (tetrahydrocannabinol)."

 

Please now read this post I placed above:

 

 

Synthetic cannabis is a psychoactive herbal and chemical product that, when consumed, allegedly mimics the effects of cannabis. It is best known by the brand names K2[1] and Spice,[2] both of which have largely become genericized trademarks used to refer to any synthetic cannabis product. (It is also for this reason that synthetic cannabis is often referred to as spice product, due to the latter.) A type of synthetic cannabis sold in Australasia is known as Kronic.

Research on the safety of synthetic cannabis is only now becoming available. Initial studies are focused on the role of synthetic cannabis and psychosis. It seems likely that synthetic cannabis can precipitate psychosis and in some cases it is prolonged. These studies suggest that synthetic cannabinoid intoxication is associated with acute psychosis, worsening of previously stable psychotic disorders, and also may have the ability to trigger a chronic (long-term) psychotic disorder among vulnerable individuals such as those with a family history of mental illness.[3][4]

When synthetic cannabis blends first went on sale in the early 2000s, it was thought that they achieved an effect through a mixture of legal herbs. Laboratory analysis in 2008 showed that this is not the case, and that they in fact contain synthetic cannabinoids that act on the body in a similar way to cannabinoids naturally found in cannabis, such as THC. A large and complex variety of synthetic cannabinoids, most often cannabicyclohexanol, JWH-018, JWH-073, or HU-210, are used in an attempt to avoid the laws that make cannabis illegal, making synthetic cannabis a designer drug. It has been sold under various brand names, online, in head shops, and at some gas stations.

It is often marketed as "herbal incense"; however, some brands market their products as "herbal smoking blends". In either case, the products are usually smoked by users. Although synthetic cannabis does not produce positive results in drug tests for cannabis, it is possible to detect its metabolites in human urine. The synthetic cannabinoids contained in synthetic cannabis products have been made illegal in many European countries. On November 24, 2010, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced it would use emergency powers to ban many synthetic cannabinoids within a month.[5] Prior to the announcement, several US states had already made them illegal under state law. As of March 1, 2011, five cannabinoids, JWH-018, JWH-073, CP-47,497, JWH-200, and cannabicyclohexanol are now illegal in the US because these substances have the potential to be extremely harmful and, therefore, pose an imminent hazard to the public safety.[6][7]

[sredish]

Bottom line it was proven not to be illegal. How can you be thrown off a ship for carrying something legal. Circumstances weren't the best but it was LEGAL!

 

He was thrown off the ship because he was deemed high risk, not technically from what can only be proven to not have THC. Tobacco does not have THC - it's legal. However, Spice - which IS illegal - also does not have THC. All the report says is that it was found to NOT have THC...that's it.

 

Also, nobody knows how he behaved, what else was found, nothing...all we know is the captain booted him for being high risk. There are obviously lots of details nobody knows and if both sides are smart, they'll quit talking as lawyers are now involved.

[Aquahound]

For those questing Paul's theory so much maybe you should read this:]

 

Thank you Steve. However, a few will continue to post that is was "proven to be legal." :rolleyes:

[CruisingMachine]

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.

 

You are exactly correct.

 

And RC has every right to do exactly that.

 

They can't possibly be expected to think of every possible scenario ahead of time that might make someone "high risk" and have that exhaustive of a list, and let anyone onboard that thought of way to get around said list. Not possible.

[Cruising89143]

Not quite accurate..."A chemical test was conducted on the herb, which showed negative for THC (tetrahydrocannabinol)."

 

Please now read this post I placed above:

 

 

Synthetic cannabis is a psychoactive herbal and chemical product that, when consumed, allegedly mimics the effects of cannabis. It is best known by the brand names K2[1] and Spice,[2] both of which have largely become genericized trademarks used to refer to any synthetic cannabis product. (It is also for this reason that synthetic cannabis is often referred to as spice product, due to the latter.) A type of synthetic cannabis sold in Australasia is known as Kronic.

Research on the safety of synthetic cannabis is only now becoming available. Initial studies are focused on the role of synthetic cannabis and psychosis. It seems likely that synthetic cannabis can precipitate psychosis and in some cases it is prolonged. These studies suggest that synthetic cannabinoid intoxication is associated with acute psychosis, worsening of previously stable psychotic disorders, and also may have the ability to trigger a chronic (long-term) psychotic disorder among vulnerable individuals such as those with a family history of mental illness.[3][4]

When synthetic cannabis blends first went on sale in the early 2000s, it was thought that they achieved an effect through a mixture of legal herbs. Laboratory analysis in 2008 showed that this is not the case, and that they in fact contain synthetic cannabinoids that act on the body in a similar way to cannabinoids naturally found in cannabis, such as THC. A large and complex variety of synthetic cannabinoids, most often cannabicyclohexanol, JWH-018, JWH-073, or HU-210, are used in an attempt to avoid the laws that make cannabis illegal, making synthetic cannabis a designer drug. It has been sold under various brand names, online, in head shops, and at some gas stations.

It is often marketed as "herbal incense"; however, some brands market their products as "herbal smoking blends". In either case, the products are usually smoked by users. Although synthetic cannabis does not produce positive results in drug tests for cannabis, it is possible to detect its metabolites in human urine. The synthetic cannabinoids contained in synthetic cannabis products have been made illegal in many European countries. On November 24, 2010, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced it would use emergency powers to ban many synthetic cannabinoids within a month.[5] Prior to the announcement, several US states had already made them illegal under state law. As of March 1, 2011, five cannabinoids, JWH-018, JWH-073, CP-47,497, JWH-200, and cannabicyclohexanol are now illegal in the US because these substances have the potential to be extremely harmful and, therefore, pose an imminent hazard to the public safety.[6][7]

 

Steve. Some still won't get it.

[aurelius180]

Thank you Steve. However, a few will continue to post that is was "proven to be legal." :rolleyes:

 

 

According to some it appears the OP and her husband were arrested, convicted and sentenced to death for simply carrying tobacco.

[Rockfordcruiser]

Thank God i was born in the USA where i am innocent until proven guilty. I just hope that if i ever get arrested for something i did not do, some of you people are not on the jury, i would be found guilty without breaking any law's. Maybe i could get them to start asking the question, "do you post to cruise critic".

 

I so agree. When it comes to breaking a law. Your are Innocent til proven guilty in a court of law. No laws were broken here for either side. From whats been posted the OP created a red flag for themselves by packing a substance with a pipe in a container with a false bottom. According to RCCL's written policy's that is enough for the captain to say no passage. Link attached http://www.royalcaribbean.com/content/en_US/pdf/Guest_Conduct_Policy.pdf

Says "possibly illegal

behavior during their cruise vacation." Now with that being said if the OP feels that the written policy is illegal then they are welcome according to their legal right fight this in a court of law. End of story.

[johneeo]

Yep the Capt is GOD... And i'm a cheer leader.

 

Thank you.

 

A number of posters are not aware of the fact that CC has a number of RCI cheerleaders who believe that RCI can do no wrong whatsoever, and that their captains are the equivalent of gods.

[beer1234]

I agree. The inside of my screen is moist form the sweat of transgressors of the law.

[Jman1118]

I do not remember the mention of a hairspray can with a hidden compartment in the original post. I was right to think the story was not given in full. As for the legality, why hide something on purpose when it is legal? makes no sense.

[Pushka]

I do not remember the mention of a hairspray can with a hidden compartment in the original post. I was right to think the story was not given in full. As for the legality, why hide something on purpose when it is legal? makes no sense.

 

I hide my jewellery when I travel.

 

And I will amend my comments to read "proven not to be THC'. doesn't change my position though, and doesn't explain why RCL have commented as they have.

[BeagleOne]

The OP and her husband purchased a cruise from RCI. At the port they were discovered to have a substance concealed in the false bottom of a fake hair spray can. We have varying reports on whether the substance was found to be something illegal or not. People with law-enforcement experience have commented that the attempted concealment could be seen as a "dry run" for future smuggling of illegal substances.

 

That alone could have led to the husband's being declared high-risk. Whether or not that was justified in our opinions is irrelevant. He was judged high-risk by security staff and ultimately by the captain, and as we all know, cruise contracts are written to give the cruise line a LOT of leeway. Legal principles like "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" don't apply. Add in the time constraints of sailing day and the captain had to make a quick decision. Which he did.

 

We don't know what the OP and her husband did or said when they were denied reboarding after he was deemed high-risk. Maybe they did or said something that aroused further suspicion. Maybe they were the victims of over-zealous security and a dictatorial captain. Maybe not.

 

The OP and her husband can go ahead and sue. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. They won't get anywhere. Her attempts to get sympathy on CC would have been far more effective had she not lied repeatedly about the incident to make her and her husband look good and RCI look bad, and perhaps, if she'd been honest, RCI would be more inclined to refund at least part of their fares.

 

I'm not an RCI cheerleader. I've never even sailed with them and in fact I'm appalled by the way their customer service department seems to be handling the aft-cabin issue on the Rhapsody. In this case, however, based on what evidence we have, which is not the whole story (which we're never likely to get), I think the captain was justified in his actions.

[Big_G]

In the spirit of discussion :) does anyone get arrested and convicted of using those tobacco like substances that cant be proven to be illegal? You said field tests so I guess you are saying there are lab tests available. But how does this work in the field? Do police report and seize and then later press charges depending on lab tests?

 

As far as the OP goes, do people really think that she would post the original thread if in fact the 'tobacco' was synthetic THC? What would they gain from doing that and in fact, they could end up in a much worse position than simply losing their cruise.

 

I hear that you are saying simply that now many of you think they were carrying synthetic THC that can't be proven but if that was the case then the motivation of the OP posting completely eludes me.

 

There are toxicology tests for those other substances but the LEO would have to have probable cause to seize it and have it tested. Being in a hide-away can along with a pipe commonly used to smoke marijuana gave the officer enough probable cause to seize it. That he didn't speaks to his discretion not to seize it an assume that it was just tobacco. The Captain may not have wanted to make that same assumption has the master of the ship.

[pseudoware]

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.

 

+1

What's at issue now is whether or not the captain's, and RCI's decision to deny the couple re-boarding and not issue a refund is justified due to a violation of the guest conduct policy.

 

Now, if weed residue was found on the pipe, as has been suggested, well, end of story. But there is still so much more that is not known. Anyone can speculate as much as they want regarding the husband's intent, but after all these posts, not enough facts have been revealed that clearly point to any definitive policy violation. There's still too much gray area.

 

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2