The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[ryano]

The couple drove so there isn't event the arguement that luggage space was at a premium. .

 

Considering the fact that the couple drove down from NC to Port Canaveral in a Nissan 350Z I would have to guess that luggage space and size of luggage was VERY MUCH at a premium! :p

 

Have you ever seen how small those cars are? :eek::p

 

Sorry :o Just trying to bring in a little laughter to such a hostile thread.

[johneeo]

It was a joke!:rolleyes:

 

When did they start allowing humor on CC?:rolleyes:

 

I must have missed the announcement.:eek:

[aurelius180]

Now that's two people that say I've lost all credibility. I should quit while I'm...???:D

 

Like the first one said, I'm not sure I had it to begin with.:(

 

 

Please don't lump me in with that person. At least your un-credible (incredible?) posts are entertaining. :o

[Aquahound]

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

 

 

Is a "police incident report" the same as a CAD or would that generally be considered a police report in the general sense the OP stated she had a copy of?

 

I know the link is to the CAD but I'm curious about the language used in the article. It seems, at this point, everyone involved (or not involved) is using misleading statements...:cool:

 

It depends on the usage of the words by the agency. In this case, it seems Incident and CAD are the same. I'm drawing this conclusion by the CAD comments at the bottom.

[Big_G]

After finding this substance hidden away in a false bottom can, unless the couple could produce a toxicology report that identified the substance as being legal, the Captain was within his right to identify the husband as high risk and bar them from the ship. Who knows what else he may have managed to slip through screening.

 

It would have looked great for RCI if they let him on and he later smoked himself into a coma on something they allowed to pass. Neither the couple, the PC cops, nor the Port Authority could definitively say the substance was legal. It's a privately owned ship and they can deny service if they choose.

 

As far as the whether it was returned to the couple or not, the police report doesn't say so why should we believe one spokes person over another.

[johneeo]

...... I'm not well, ......

 

You have a lot of company participating in this thread.;)

[BeagleOne]

You are wrong.

it shows categorically that RCI was basing its decision not to allow them to reboard on the discovery of a proven illegal substance, which violated their Guest Conduct policy.

 

So it had nothing to do with the couple's behaviour, otherwise I'm sure we would have heard about it from RCI.

 

 

I should have written "was APPARENTLY enough" to make it clear that I, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HERE, was speculating. NONE of us can state CATEGORICALLY what happened.

 

I doubt Ms. Martinez' email is a complete account of what happened. Since none of us, including you, were there, none of us can say for certain whether the couple's conduct after the discovery had anything to do with their being denied passage.

 

I'm not surprised RCI hasn't yet issued a complete statement, especially since the couple has apparently been in touch with lawyers. "Mary" has already done their case a lot of harm by her postings on CC and has now, sensibly, stopped posting. I wouldn't expect RCI to issue an official statement for quite awhile.

 

Thanks for the info on the CAD, aquahound. :)

[aurelius180]

It depends on the usage of the words by the agency. In this case, it seems Incident and CAD are the same. I'm drawing this conclusion by the CAD comments at the bottom.

 

 

Got it.

 

I was curious about the lack of information contained in the report but was unaware of the existence of the two separate reports. Thanks for clearing it up.

[teajak]

The last line of the police report says it all. "This was a non law enforcement issue."

 

Those who have posted "innocent until proven guilty" and "they did nothing illegal" and who've gone so far as to wish that other posters get arrested have COMPLETELY missed the point. It DOESN'T MATTER that the substance (apparently) wasn't illegal (or, at any rate, wasn't pot). What matters is that the husband's conduct in packing the stuff and the pipe in a secret compartment aroused the suspicion of security and was enough for the captain, who is responsible for the welfare of thousands of passengers and crew, and a VERY expensive ship, to make a time-constrained decision to deny them passage. Maybe if this had occurred at 11 a.m. instead of within an hour or so of sailing, giving the captain more time to sort things out, things would have been different.

 

And of course none of us, even those who were on the cruise, witnessed the incident so we don't know if the husband and/or wife might have reacted in such a way as to exacerbate the situation.

 

The couple won't get anywhere in court. Maybe RCI will refund them, maybe they won't. If I were RCI, I might be less inclined to work with them because of her postings on CC and his admissions in the CC article. I don't think this is as much of a publicity nightmare for RCI as some people think, but I could be wrong.

 

As for the rum runners...I don't drink much and I think it's stupid to try to sneak booze onto a ship. It's a clear violation of the contract; just because the cruise lines generally just confiscate the booze doesn't mean they can't deny boarding if they want to. Why risk your vacation just to reduce your bar bill?

 

Whether the contracts are fair is another discussion. I would argue that aspects of them are not. But the cruise lines are private businesses and we are free not to do business with them. We have to decide whether cruising is worth giving up certain rights. So far it appears that everyone here has decided it is.

Thank you, the best post I have read.I totally agree.

[Heidils]

You have a lot of company participating in this thread.;)

 

Wow. Bold.

[Dan Askin]

One thing that you all should realize, and cruise Critic should realize is, the link on the news story is NOTa police report. It is a CAD report. It stands for Computer Aided Dispatch. It is a record that is created for every single call. Info recorded on a CAD report is entered by a dispatcher based on his/her communication with the officer. It is not completed by an officer and does not include statements, including RCI's comments. CAD reports are one-sided only and only create a record of the call.

 

This should be considered when making assumptions based on that report.

 

Thanks, Aquahound, we've clarified the language. We're being told by PC that there will not be an official "police report" -- triple checking though with officials, so stay tuned. For now, it's just the "incident report" submitted by the police officers.

[Heidils]

Thanks, Aquahound, we've clarified the language. We're being told by PC that there will not be an official "police report" -- triple checking though with officials, so stay tuned. For now, it's just the "incident report."

 

Oh now I get it...

[mjldvlks]

But .. we have reason to doubt RCI :rolleyes:

Apparently not -- ever.

[aurelius180]

Thanks, Aquahound, we've clarified the language. We're being told by PC that there will not be an official "police report" -- triple checking though with officials, so stay tuned. For now, it's just the "incident report" submitted by the police officers.

 

 

Glad you guys are on the case! Hopefully you can dig up a complete story. :cool:

[graphicguy]

So you don't think the Captain had to take into consideration the safety of the other passengers and the possibility that this couple could be up to no good or planning to smuggle drugs on based on how this hooka was packed?

 

I said this on the other thread and was dismissed by many but it just doesn't make sense to pack this like they did unless they were trying to sneak it on or test the waters.

 

The couple drove so there isn't event the arguement that luggage space was at a premium. I know if I was concerned that something would be construed as illegal I'd be bringing it in my carryon in its original packaging. People don't hide things unless they have something to hide.

They could say my GF plans to smuggle pounds of drugs based on the the number of shoes she takes on a cruise, and how she stuffs her panties in those shoes. Why she wants to hide her unmentionables is beyond me. But, she does. It makes absolutely no sense to me why she needs so many shoes, and why she packs them the way she does. However, I'm not going to admonish her for what she packs, or how she packs. I'll also defend her to any supposed cruise security agent if they questioned her.

 

None of this has anything to do with the safety of the passengers.

 

Bottom line, and the most obvious explanation is that RCCL security screwed up. The sooner they admit that, and make this couple whole, the easier and quicker it will be to put this behind them (which is something they probably would like to do).

[EVALUATOR]

Didn't the OP state the police report she had was 5 pages long???

 

Nope, a 5 page letter, with the incident report...

 

Originally Posted by Hager350z

I haven't been able to read through all the post yet but I did want to update that I faxed and emailed the incident report from the port Canaveral police department and a 5 page letter with the day as it unfolded. On the report from the PD it said that the tabacco was tested for marijuana and tested negative but at the beginning it said was called in as narcotics and passenger will not sail. Then it says tabacco tested negative but captain denied boarding. The part at the beginning is bothering me...sounds as if the decision was made before even opening the dive bag.

 

Hell, now I'm talking to myself.:o

[Heidils]

The last line of the police report says it all. "This was a non law enforcement issue."

 

Those who have posted "innocent until proven guilty" and "they did nothing illegal" and who've gone so far as to wish that other posters get arrested have COMPLETELY missed the point. It DOESN'T MATTER that the substance (apparently) wasn't illegal (or, at any rate, wasn't pot). What matters is that the husband's conduct in packing the stuff and the pipe in a secret compartment aroused the suspicion of security and was enough for the captain, who is responsible for the welfare of thousands of passengers and crew, and a VERY expensive ship, to make a time-constrained decision to deny them passage. Maybe if this had occurred at 11 a.m. instead of within an hour or so of sailing, giving the captain more time to sort things out, things would have been different.

 

And of course none of us, even those who were on the cruise, witnessed the incident so we don't know if the husband and/or wife might have reacted in such a way as to exacerbate the situation.

 

The couple won't get anywhere in court. Maybe RCI will refund them, maybe they won't. If I were RCI, I might be less inclined to work with them because of her postings on CC and his admissions in the CC article. I don't think this is as much of a publicity nightmare for RCI as some people think, but I could be wrong.

 

As for the rum runners...I don't drink much and I think it's stupid to try to sneak booze onto a ship. It's a clear violation of the contract; just because the cruise lines generally just confiscate the booze doesn't mean they can't deny boarding if they want to. Why risk your vacation just to reduce your bar bill?

 

Whether the contracts are fair is another discussion. I would argue that aspects of them are not. But the cruise lines are private businesses and we are free not to do business with them. We have to decide whether cruising is worth giving up certain rights. So far it appears that everyone here has decided it is.

 

Your bottom line is the bottom line...If we don't like the cruise contract we don't have to take the cruise. That does however highlight the fact that some cruise lines have their own justice. Some of which I'm greatful for and some that borders on rediculous.

 

guess it's good to be informed

[aurelius180]

Nope, a 5 page letter, with the incident report...

 

Originally Posted by Hager350z

I haven't been able to read through all the post yet but I did want to update that I faxed and emailed the incident report from the port Canaveral police department and a 5 page letter with the day as it unfolded. On the report from the PD it said that the tabacco was tested for marijuana and tested negative but at the beginning it said was called in as narcotics and passenger will not sail. Then it says tabacco tested negative but captain denied boarding. The part at the beginning is bothering me...sounds as if the decision was made before even opening the dive bag.

 

Hell, now I'm talking to myself.:o

 

 

The incident report she describes sounds like the CAD posted by CC.

[Rocky999]

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.

 

 

I agree with you. What rule was broken?

[Heidils]

I agree with you. What rule was broken?

 

Ditto!

[EVALUATOR]

The incident report she describes sounds like the CAD posted by CC.

 

Yep, I thought I recalled where she said a 5 page police report. It was way back in the other thread.

[Beachin2]

I can tell you one thing for sure. In my limited cruising history, these two ports are the ONLY two ports I have been to where I was not pressured to buy dope. In no way am I saying drugs are not on those islands though.

 

That also mirrors my experience - but I've only done the itinerary about 6 times so don't have much to go on.

[geduffer]

They could say my GF plans to smuggle pounds of drugs based on the the number of shoes she takes on a cruise, and how she stuffs her panties in those shoes. Why she wants to hide her unmentionables is beyond me. But, she does. It makes absolutely no sense to me why she needs so many shoes, and why she packs them the way she does. However, I'm not going to admonish her for what she packs, or how she packs. I'll also defend her to any supposed cruise security agent if they questioned her.

 

None of this has anything to do with the safety of the passengers.

 

Bottom line, and the most obvious explanation is that RCCL security screwed up. The sooner they admit that, and make this couple whole, the easier and quicker it will be to put this behind them (which is something they probably would like to do).

 

With that many shoes, the baggage fees must be a killer when you fly. :D

 

As for this couple, if they could be granted a do-over they probably should have carried it in the original packaging instead of hiding it. Acting suspicious when boarding a ship (much like icing the puck while on a power play in hockey) is never a good idea.

 

I'm about to sail on my 10th cruise in 14 years in September and I won't lie, I used to smoke marijuana for quite a while. However, not once in all my cruises did I ever carry it aboard a cruise ship. My wife waited patiently for me to give it up and it took the first 13 years of our marriage until I did, but the one thing I would never do is risk subjecting her to that on our vacation. I went to the bars instead.

 

I feel bad for the couple because they got hammered for bad judgment, but they did not have an illegal substance and the Captain and RCI overreacted, so they should have probably have let them board after they realized that the substance was indeed legal (knowing that there was no way they would try to bring anything on board worse than cigarettes after that). In the end, it was their call to act in the best interests of the ship, crew and passengers and if that's what they decided, that's what the couple has to live with. If they can recover their money in court, good for them.

[GriffinAlexander]

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.
  

 

This is true, but it still behooves the passenger to carry their medications in the original prescription bottles whenever possible. Just to be safe. If you do choose to take your medication as indicated above, you should at the very least bring copies of your prescriptions with you. You can even use an iPhone app like 'genius scan' to make digital copies of your prescriptions to take with you. Especially if you take stuff for pain or nerves, or anything which someone might want to steal from you. it will be helpful in the event that you get an overzealous agent, a room cleaning person with sticky fingers or any other situation where your medication gets swiped and you need to prove it's yours. Also, if you were to lose your medication or drop it in, oh I don't know, a pool or something accidentally, you would have a prescription to take to the pharmacy so they can call your US pharmacy and get your refill. I had a problem on my one cruise where I took the wrong bottle of pain medicine with me. Instead of the full one I took the one that was open, and didn't have enough for the 7 day trip. I wound up adjusting my medication so that I made it last. If I had run out of my migraine shots though, or forgotten them, I would have paid whatever I needed to get them refilled, even if I had to pay out of pocket.

 

While on the subject, you should also have your medical history available in a get file on your smartphone if you suffer from any chronic conditions which may be exacerbated on the ship. Diabetes, migraines, heart problems, auto-immune disorders, anything else I can't think of, along with medication list and when you take each med along with dosage is also helpful. Ensure that your traveling partner can access this info. If possible keep a printed copy safe with your passport. Then if something happens, instead of trying to get answers out of you for these questions while you are in distress, you'll simply have a paper with all of the necessary information for the ship's doctor to treat you handy.

[trout62]

This is why I always use a "TobaccoRunner" for all of my smoke, and pack it right next to my RumRunners:rolleyes:

 

Dude, you have to put out a "coke alert" before you post something that funny. My keyboard is soaked. Glad I wasn't using my laptop.

 

Trout