The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[Heidils]

720 + posts here and what have we learned?

 

That there is more than one side of the story, that's for sure.

 

The Captain has the final authority to allow or deny boarding.

 

And, I, for one, don't believe that the whole story is out yet!;)

 

Rick

 

Very true. This is all speculation. It's worth a debate but we don't know. Just don't like ignorance.

[aurelius180]

If I am wrong correct me....didn't the OP and in CC's news blog state that the substance was in fact not illeagal, and that it was tested at the police station and was ultimately given back to the Op's family?

 

 

The story said it tested negative for THC. It didn't state it was definitively a legal substance.

 

The fact remains we don't know the whole story and haven't seen the police report and may never will.

 

The LEO could have told security (and in turn it was relayed to the Captain) that no it's not marijuana but it could be a number of other items that Paul has already stated couldn't be tested for. The officer could have declined to arrest based on it not being THC but advised it was still suspicious. The Captain could then deem him "high risk" and deny re-boarding.

[Ocean Boy]

What did they smuggle?

 

What is it that caused them to be labeled as "high risk" passengers is a better question. No security organization is likely to release a cook book list of actions that result in a person being placed on a "high risk" list. So I doubt that we will ever get an answer to the question. And though it is fine for us to have a conversation about it, the answer to the question is neither any of our business nor is it owed to us.

 

We all are aware of the day and age that we live in. We know that travel, whether by plane or on a cruise ship, presents security challeges today that were never dreamed of in the past. Anyone who is not bright enough to conduct themselves in ways that might be deemed suspicious in light of the times that we are living in should either stay home or be prepared to deal with the consequenses. And, unfortunately, it is not always about whether you are in the right or not. Perception counts for a lot. Right or wrong, it is what it is.

[Heidils]

The story said it tested negative for THC. It didn't state it was definitively a legal substance.

 

The fact remains we don't know the whole story and haven't seen the police report and may never will.

 

The LEO could have told security (and in turn it was relayed to the Captain) that no it's not marijuana but it could be a number of other items that Paul has already stated couldn't be tested for. The officer could have declined to arrest based on it not being THC but advised it was still suspicious. The Captain could then deem him "high risk" and deny re-boarding.

 

So... now we have to prove our innocence first, and, be juged on what we might do in the future. Huh.

[graphicguy]

O.K. at the risk of flamers...again...I'll jump in.

What breach of contract??? They packed something legal in a can meant to hide jewelry, etc. What rule did they break. The stuff was not contraband....what risk??? The contract does not specify what containers you may pack your crap in:rolleyes: Many pipe smokers smoke flavored tobacco, it doesn't matter what they named it.

The supposition that they were testing the waters for other substances is just that, an assumption.

They broke no rules, co-operated with authorities and by all rights should have proceeded on their cruise. Those are the only concrete facts as presented by the above report. It still worries me. Now do I have to watch exactly how and what I pack my crap in???

Go ahead flame away.

 

BecciBoo....I see this the same way. They tested the "baggy" not once, not twice, but three times and still wouldn't let them continue their cruise. RCCL did not act in good faith and left some details out of their response.

 

That's out and out stealing by RCCL. 350z paid for the cruise, did nothing wrong, and were denied to take the cruise. That's theft by RCCL in my book.

[mjldvlks]

Also because he wasn't denied re-boarding due to the results of the test. He was deemed "high-risk." We can only assume this was decided upon because of the stated intent in the manner in which he transported the tobacco.

 

Given that the OP left out so many details it's also not so far fetched to assume some type of verbal altercation may have occurred between her husband and security. This would be expected as emotions would run high but the OP seemed so level-headed in her original discussion. But again her omissions put this into question as well.

Actually, according to the CC article:

 

Royal Caribbean spokeswoman Cynthia Martinez told Cruise Critic that the item tested positive for a controlled substance in a field test conducted by RCI security and witnessed by Port Canaveral police officers. "The 'tobacco' was taken by law enforcement to be destroyed," Martinez wrote in an e-mail, and, per the line's Guest Conduct Policy, which prohibits "illegal substances" and states that the line can remove passengers who violate the policy, Mary and Robert were denied boarding.

 

RCI's position is that it was because of the alleged positive test. The "high risk" comment came from OP and her DH. Personally, I think the "high risk" comment was indeed made to OP and her DH but was simply a way of saying that the test may have been negative, but we [RCI] still believe you are up to something [and frankly they are probably right] so we are throwing you off anyway. As I have said before, I have no problem with that decision or the Captain's right to make it. But think if it is merely based on suspicion, then they should get a refund.

[aurelius180]

As I have said before, I have no problem with that decision or the Captain's right to make it. But think if it is merely based on suspicion, then they should get a refund.

 

 

I've stated the same.

[Ocean Boy]

BecciBoo....I see this the same way. They tested the "baggy" not once, not twice, but three times and still wouldn't let them continue their cruise.

 

That's out and out stealing by RCCL. 350z paid for the cruise, did nothing wrong, and were denied to take the cruise. That's theft by RCCL in my book.

 

That is an assumption. Even if the substance turned out to be completely legal none of us knows what the actual issue was that causes these people to be labled as "high risk" passengers. So how do you know that they did nothing wrong?

[aurelius180]

CC posted the police report:

 

http://c3270052.r52.cf0.rackcdn.com/freedom-incident-report.jpg

[bmarchal]

I have the feeling that the fact that he raised a red flag on the contents of the hairspray can was bad enough but what was his attitude when he was questioned? Did he become hot under the coller and argumentative because he got caught trying something that he obviously thought might be illegal or not allowed? Otherwise, why would he try to hide it?

 

I'm sure that the captain was on the phone the whole time with the legal office in Miami and was well aware of his legal rights. Wether or not the passengers are entitled to the cost of their cruise back is a matter for the legal system to sort out.

[nellydean]

Here is the Port Canaveral police report, as posted in a link on the Cruise Critic news article:

 

http://c3270052.r52.cf0.rackcdn.com/freedom-incident-report.jpg

 

It doesn't comment on them being denied boarding, but quite clearly states no narcotics were found

[Jumbiecruiser]

If I am wrong correct me....didn't the OP and in CC's news blog state that the substance was in fact not illeagal, and that it was tested at the police station and was ultimately given back to the Op's family?

 

Wrong. It was not taken back to the police station and tested. It was only tested for THC. If it were Spice then that would not have shown up in the test.

[Jumbiecruiser]

I've been following yesterday and today and so far today there has not been anything new. It's just the same old drivel over and over again. Really people, Get a Life and get over this cause it is over.

 

Then why are YOU still reading it? Are we the only ones that need to get a life?:rolleyes:

[mjldvlks]

And we all know that Mary lied about the pipe. That's NOT a "Popeye the Sailor Man" pipe. LOL

We know what she said and we know that the port spokesperson said it was a "chamber type pipe." We have not see the actual pipe and we don't know what OP considers a "Popeye the Sailor Man type" pipe. I assumed when she said that it was not the ordinary pipe my dad used to smoke. It seemd like an odd description. Oh, and we also know the police did not confiscate it.

[beer1234]

Reading and retyping drivel are two separate things. I'm gone .

[Heidils]

What is it that caused them to be labeled as "high risk" passengers is a better question. No security organization is likely to release a cook book list of actions that result in a person being placed on a "high risk" list. So I doubt that we will ever get an answer to the question. And though it is fine for us to have a conversation about it, the answer to the question is neither any of our business nor is it owed to us.

 

We all are aware of the day and age that we live in. We know that travel, whether by plane or on a cruise ship, presents security challeges today that were never dreamed of in the past. Anyone who is not bright enough to conduct themselves in ways that might be deemed suspicious in light of the times that we are living in should either stay home or be prepared to deal with the consequenses. And, unfortunately, it is not always about whether you are in the right or not. Perception counts for a lot. Right or wrong, it is what it is.

 

YA know I was thinking along the same lines. I don't smoke, don't hog chairs, say, "Please and thank you", Won't smuggle even if I find the Rules inconvienant, and yet the line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

When mom was well and we traveled together, she got "Profiled" every single time. My cute little mom. While they were patting her down (again) there was a gentelman behind us in his dress which included a headress. He was let through without concern.

 

If you want to say that sometimes people don't use good judgement, why does that man push his limits here in the US, when Ann Curry goes to other contries that requrie women to wear headresses and she does.

 

Should we be smart and not give reason to be picked out? Yes! However, there is time that you push back and say, "No"

[Jumbiecruiser]

CC posted the police report:

 

http://c3270052.r52.cf0.rackcdn.com/freedom-incident-report.jpg

 

Still does not tell us if this was Spice. They just tested for THC. I'm willing to bet that this was Spice and not what the couple were claiming. She lied so in her other post so I will not give her the benefit of doubt unless her husband was pulling a fast one without her knowledge.

[bigeagle12]

but quite clearly states no narcotics were found

 

FALSE - states it was not marijauna :rolleyes:

 

Also says nothing about 3 tests :rolleyes:

 

Also does not state the disposition of the "substance" .. returned or destroyed.

[skippyy]

It is interesting to observe that this issue is so devicive, Those who agree with us are reasonable and those who see things differently are idiots, no matter which side you're on :eek: Probably a reflection of the lack of moral clarity existing in this day and age ?

[Beachin2]

Interesting that the police report clearly states "tobacco products".

 

BTW - I'm not sure I really buy the "dry run" theory. Look at the itinerary: CoCo Cay, St Thomas, St. Maartin. Not like they were on the Jamaica run.

[mjldvlks]

Then why are YOU still reading it? Are we the only ones that need to get a life?:rolleyes:

LOL, How many times have you wanted to respond to a statment like this with a simple "and yet here you are."

[Jumbiecruiser]

Interesting that the police report clearly states "tobacco products".

 

BTW - I'm not sure I really buy the "dry run" theory. Look at the itinerary: CoCo Cay, St Thomas, St. Maartin. Not like they were on the Jamaica run.

 

Really, you don't think they have drugs in St. Thomas or St. Maarten?

[Heidils]

Still does not tell us if this was Spice. They just tested for THC. I'm willing to bet that this was Spice and not what the couple were claiming. She lied so in her other post so I will not give her the benefit of doubt unless her husband was pulling a fast one without her knowledge.

 

Ok I'm addicted...what is Spice and was that a question?

[monn_a]

Exactly. It is terrifying how many people are willing to just roll over and give up all their freedoms to overzealous authority.

 

Precisely, we've been conditioned into this state of absolute authority, are we not allowed to disagree with people in authority anymore?

 

And why is that every time someone disagrees with a RCI action they're told to go to another cruise line. I like Royal and will continue to cruise with them and other lines as I chose, but that doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes. We all do.

[Jumbiecruiser]

Ok I'm addicted...what is Spice and was that a question?

 

I guess you have not read this entire thread or the previous one. Aquahound explained it well. Google it.