The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[Jumbiecruiser]

They don't understand that the cruise line can make their own set of rules like the ones in the cruise contract. You could be put off the ship for conduct that is not illegal.

 

And we all accept those rules/contract when we buy a cruise. Some people don't get that either. They don't like the rules then find another form of vacation because all cruise lines I know have those rules to protect themselves.

[johneeo]

They don't understand that the cruise line can make their own set of rules like the ones in the cruise contract. You could be put off the ship for conduct that is not illegal.

 

Anyone that fails to realize when you leave port, you are on a foreign flagged ship, and all protection of USA laws are no longer in effect.

 

Same goes for when you put your feet on that foreign island. Democratic rule will not be in effect.

[bisbee]

Having read just about enough of this thread (and the original), here's my take on the situation:

 

1. I'm still not sure exactly how this was originally found in the first place, but I'll concede that it did look like a possible illegal substance was being brought on board.

 

2. The captain was within the rights granted to him as captain to deny boarding. I don't agree, since there was nothing illegal about the tobacco - it's not illegal to pack something in a suspicious manner, especially after the substance was tested and found not to be illegal - however, he was within his rights as captain.

 

3. I agree with those who said that penalizing this couple for possible future misdeeds isn't exactly "kosher".

 

4. I don't see how this couple isn't entitled to a full refund, including any additional expenses they may have incurred as a result of not being able to board the ship. Regardless of the fact that the captain could refuse boarding, they did nothing wrong that would have entitled RCI to keep their money. I'd bet on them getting their refund, at the very least.

 

Now...I know marijuana is illegal, but I'd much rather have stoned people on a cruise with me than sloppy drunks...of course, that is only my opinion. ;)

[EVALUATOR]

I will give you a perfect example...I was on a sailing....there was a 16 year old kid "suspected" of being drunk in the teen club...my kids witnessed this....the teen claimed his erratic walking on a leg injury...the next day the teen was again in the club and again appeared drunk and started a VERBAL confrontation with another teen...the suspected teens parents were called and the father got into a verbal confrontation with security...both the father and son were ordered off the ship at the next port of call and the mother and their other teen and adult daughter continued on. The rules of the ship are just that....the rules of the ship....doesn't mean that it's always "illegal" or you are going to be arrested.

 

But it was the verbal confrontations that got them booted, not the alleged drinking right???

[bajathree]

Oh, I agree and I understand. I was just responding to your question. You know better than to put such a loaded question in a post. :D;):rolleyes:

 

I know Lori....but some people seem shocked when they here about someone being denied boarding or ordered off the ship...they think that you have to be doing something totally illegal or be taken off in handcuffs and arrested as soon as in the next port...not so.

[GriffinAlexander]

Pretty sure a hookah falls under prohibited items. Remember, they dont list every single prohibited item. But a hookah would indeed fall under because it is a FIRE HAZARD. So no, there is a violation of the guest conduct policy.

 

As an avid hookah smoker, I would say you'd have to be a total moron to believe a hookah is an acceptable thing to take on a cruise ship. Because they require coals to smoke. These coals in two types, quick lites which when lit throw off all kinds of sparks or natural which take an incredible amount of heat/fire to light. And if it wasn't a hookah pipe, then it wasn't shisha(like the article claims).

 

I'd say its bad PR to keep their money, but it is likely perfectly legal to do so under the contract.

 

As I understand it from the information given from the original thread and this one, the pipe is either a chamber pipe or a popeye style corn cob pipe. The tobacco is confirmed in this thread to be hookah tobacco, but the pipe itself wasn't a hookah. The chamber pipe is traditionally used for pot, I don't see how it would work with hookah tobacco which is sticky. And the same for the corn cob pipe, it's used for dry tobacco, I don't see how hookah tobacco would work with that either. But neither report, from this thread or from the original thread's original poster) references a hookah being brought aboard.

[BeagleOne]

Why is it that everyone thinks you have to do something illegal or be arrested to be ordered off the ship or denied boarding:confused:

 

Because some people don't understand the difference between criminal law, which IS NOT involved here, and contract law, an area of civil law, which IS involved here.

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

I'm gonna call this The Herpes Thread, no matter what you do, it won't go away!!:eek:

[HB Cruiser]

Good post but respectfully, #4 cannot be fact. There is no test for tobacco and it is impossible to find a substance to be tobacco.

 

All that we know is that the substance did not test positive for marijuana.

 

Thank you for the correction!

 

4. The tobacco was later retested and found not to be an illegal substance.

 

It all boils down to the fact the Captain did performed a duty some people are not happy with. Again, had the husband not started the whole problem, we would not be debating this now and reading better and more informative posts.

 

Tim

[bajathree]

But it was the verbal confrontations that got them booted, not the alleged drinking right???

 

Can't honestly answer that one for the teen.....but the verbal confrontation of the father is what got him ordered off.

[teajak]

Because some people don't understand the difference between criminal law, which IS NOT involved here, and contract law, an area of civil law, which IS involved here.

This has been explained over and over in enough detail that a school child could understand. I do not understand why some posters don't get but it sure cannot be made any simpler.:eek:

[reallyitsmema]

This has been explained over and over in enough detail that a school child could understand. I do not understand why some posters don't get but it sure cannot be made any simpler.:eek:

Because not everyone is smarter than a fifth grader!:eek::p

[johneeo]

I will give you a perfect example...I was on a sailing....there was a 16 year old kid "suspected" of being drunk in the teen club...my kids witnessed this....the teen claimed his erratic walking on a leg injury...the next day the teen was again in the club and again appeared drunk and started a VERBAL confrontation with another teen...the suspected teens parents were called and the father got into a verbal confrontation with security...both the father and son were ordered off the ship at the next port of call and the mother and their other teen and adult daughter continued on. The rules of the ship are just that....the rules of the ship....doesn't mean that it's always "illegal" or you are going to be arrested.

 

As the father of a 15 YO, I would have handled that quite differently.

 

"Mr. Security Officer, I apologize for my son's behaviour. You can have him. Place him in the brig, I will get his passport so you can give it to him when you boot him off the ship at the next port.

Son, good luck to you."

[lori450]

As I understand it from the information given from the original thread and this one, the pipe is either a chamber pipe or a popeye style corn cob pipe. The tobacco is confirmed in this thread to be hookah tobacco, but the pipe itself wasn't a hookah. The chamber pipe is traditionally used for pot, I don't see how it would work with hookah tobacco which is sticky. And the same for the corn cob pipe, it's used for dry tobacco, I don't see how hookah tobacco would work with that either. But neither report, from this thread or from the original thread's original poster) references a hookah being brought aboard.

 

Now there's a man who knows his tobacco!:)

[bigedwin]

Royal should reimburse their cruise fare, plain and Simple!

They did not have anything Illegal!

It's ridiculous the way people say they should not be reimbursed!

They Did not have Drugs !

Plain and Simple!

[BeagleOne]

As the father of a 15 YO, I would have handled that quite differently.

 

"Mr. Security Officer, I apologize for my son's behaviour. You can have him. Place him in the brig, I will get his passport so you can give it to him when you boot him off the ship at the next port.

 

Son, good luck to you."

 

Excellent idea! How someone can defend their drunk underage kid harassing people, instead of disciplining him/her, is beyond me.

[toocruisin2]

Why is it that everyone thinks you have to do something illegal or be arrested to be ordered off the ship or denied boarding:confused:

 

Speaking only for myself, I love cruising, spend a lot of time researching and planning, involve my friends and family, ultimately spend a lot of money and get a great deal of enjoyment from the whole process; to answer your question: I would hate to think that one of my passions would be taken away from me when I haven't broken any laws, or done something wrong, even though I understand that the rules and terms of the contract allow the cruise line to do just that.

 

I guess I have been and will continue to be operating under the assumption that even though the cruise line has the ultimate upper hand, I can have faith that their sense of fair play and discretion will always lead them to do the right thing. That's why.

[bajathree]

As the father of a 15 YO, I would have handled that quite differently.

 

"Mr. Security Officer, I apologize for my son's behaviour. You can have him. Place him in the brig, I will get his passport so you can give it to him when you boot him off the ship at the next port.

Son, good luck to you."

 

John I hear ya:D

 

BUT on a serious note...if someone's teen child does something that get's them thrown off the ship....guess what...per the guest agreement you are responsible for their actions and as such are going to be accompanying them off the ship. Don't believe Royal is going to leave a minor in a port alone;)

 

Parental and Guardian Responsibility

For purposes of this Guest Conduct Policy, a minor is defined as anyone under the age

of 18. A young adult is defined as anyone ages 18, 19 or 20. Parents and guardians

are responsible for the behavior and appropriate supervision of their accompanying

minor(s) and young adult(s) throughout their vacation. This obligation applies during transfers to and from ships, inside terminals, while onboard, at our ports-of-call, during

shore excursions and at our private destinations. This responsibility applies at all times,

regardless of whether the parents and guardians are physically in the company of their

minor(s) and young adult(s).

[Never2Late2Cruise]

Just my $.02

 

I think there are a several different issues at play here.

 

Firstly, I think the Captain was within his right to deny them boarding based on the information he had at the time he needed to make a decision. Like an airline, vessel captains are given VERY wide attitude in who they allow to board. Due to the tremendous responsibility the captain has with respect to the safety and security of the passengers, crew and vessel. This is recognized both domestically and internationally.

 

Secondly, I think they are entitled to a full refund for their cruise fare. Based on the evidence, they did nothing contradictory to the contract of carriage. They paid for passage on the ship and the cruise line denied them what they had paid for.

 

Lastly, are they entitled to any type of damages for the incident? In my personal opinion, they are not. They bear some responsibility for the whole ordeal through their exercise of poor judgement. I believe I saw somewhere that they said they regretted hiding the tobacco in the can and had they to do it again they would not. Ultimately though, it would be for a judge or jury to decide whether they are entitled to damages should they pursue them.

 

I agree with your 2 cents and now its 4 cents.

 

I have read all of the first thread and 44 pages of this thread.

 

On the original thread I was very sympathetic of the OP's story and hoped they would get a full refund and a perk on another cruise that they could not refuse.

 

After reading the new facts, I have modified my position as to what the op should get.

 

I compared it to the following scenario. ( not an actual event just lets suppose).

 

I am at the airport, had quite a few drinks, definitely have that intoxicated glow but NOT loud or disruptive.

 

I board the plan, get to my seat and when the Stewart comes down the isle sees my glow and Sh** eating grin.

 

The Stewart goes to the captain and states that there is a passenger that looks (has the signs of being) intoxicated and therefor will be denying me any alcoholic beverages.

 

Captain makes the decision that he would rather not have a me onboard as I may become disruptive. I am escorted off the plan.

 

The captain has every right and obligation to make it a good flight for ALL the passengers and used his best guess to attain this.

 

I would expect the airline to offer to fly me on a future flight as long as I sober up. If they are not willing AND I WAS NOT DISRUPTIVE a refund of my fare.

 

In no way should they be responsible for my extra cost or disruption of plans. I was stupid for allowing myself to reach that perceived state.

 

The world used to be black and white, now shades of gray exist and we can be innocent but we give the impression that the will be a problem.

 

Pre 9/11 I would think nothing of saying to my partner at the airport "Keep that up and you will never make it to your destination".

 

Post 9/11 you do not make this kind of joke. With all the press of people getting booted off a plane for intoxication, you cant put yourself in a position of being perceived as a threat.

 

My take on it now is

I am going to believe the OP that there was nothing illegal ONLY stupidity.

I am of the opinion that either the captain was misinformed or made a judgement call for the safety of the ship and other passengers.

 

The OP should get a full refund of the monies paid. RCCL should not profit as the PAX were denied passage but did nothing illegal or specifically not allowed.

 

The OP should NOT get anything more as by their own admission were stupid and should not profit by their stupidity.

 

RCCL does NOT owe the PAX an apology.

 

Jeff

[Dan Askin]

No problem Dan. This is my line of work, so that's why I know all the lingo. ;)

 

The fact the LE Case Number is blank, and further down it says Disposition: No Report, also tells me no case number was pulled. Therefore, there were no intentions to write a full police report, at least, not at that time and not up until the date the CAD report was printed on April 26.

 

The lingo is essential. New statement from Port Canaveral, which, naturally, jives with your read of the situation:

 

No police report was completed or is forthcoming. "There was no criminal activity and it was handled entirely by the cruise line," said Port Canaveral spokeswoman Rosalind Harvey.

[ryano]

I'm gonna call this The Herpes Thread, no matter what you do, it won't go away!!:eek:

 

LOL! How true!

 

Its actually pretty comical at this point. All it is is senseless banter back and forth with both sides not wanting to budge a bit.

 

Im still trying to figure out, exactly, what "Mary" has to gain by "gaining support of CC members so RCI will refund her" as if anyone here or a combination of us ALL that might have supported her, has anything to do with getting her matter resolved LOL!

 

Comical for sure, I tell ya!

[EVALUATOR]

As the father of a 15 YO, I would have handled that quite differently.

 

"Mr. Security Officer, I apologize for my son's behaviour. You can have him. Place him in the brig, I will get his passport so you can give it to him when you boot him off the ship at the next port.

 

Son, good luck to you."

 

But you know, a few days later you would get the 15 YO back with a sympathy note.

[softsands]

For real - everyone is fussing at the OP for not telling the "entire story," but I don't blame her. She was protecting her husband's dignity. Very admirable, in my opinion.

 

I do think it's a little messed up that people actually smuggle and attempt to smuggle alcohol onboard all the time, but he "smuggles" on a legal substance and can't board the ship? While the argument that he displayed the fact that he had the equipment to smuggle illegal substances onboard is definitely valid, I wouldn't ignore that the officers were probably embarassed/disappointed that they didn't have a real drug bust and wanted to make sure that in the end, they still won. Probably a mixture of a safety precaution and power trip.

 

But I think the wife should have been allowed to reboard if she wanted to (of course, why would she want to, but still). She was only guilty by association.

 

Oh c'mon, if you come on to this site looking for sympathy but fail to disclose a material piece of information like that, you're not only not admirable, you're not credible, either.

[EVALUATOR]

I agree with your 2 cents and now its 4 cents.

 

I have read all of the first thread and 44 pages of this thread.

 

On the original thread I was very sympathetic of the OP's story and hoped they would get a full refund and a perk on another cruise that they could not refuse.

 

After reading the new facts, I have modified my position as to what the op should get.

 

I compared it to the following scenario. ( not an actual event just lets suppose).

 

I am at the airport, had quite a few drinks, definitely have that intoxicated glow but NOT loud or disruptive.

 

I board the plan, get to my seat and when the Stewart comes down the isle sees my glow and Sh** eating grin.

 

The Stewart goes to the captain and states that there is a passenger that looks (has the signs of being) intoxicated and therefor will be denying me any alcoholic beverages.

 

Captain makes the decision that he would rather not have a me onboard as I may become disruptive. I am escorted off the plan.

 

The captain has every right and obligation to make it a good flight for ALL the passengers and used his best guess to attain this.

 

I would expect the airline to offer to fly me on a future flight as long as I sober up. If they are not willing AND I WAS NOT DISRUPTIVE a refund of my fare.

 

In no way should they be responsible for my extra cost or disruption of plans. I was stupid for allowing myself to reach that perceived state.

 

The world used to be black and white, now shades of gray exist and we can be innocent but we give the impression that the will be a problem.

 

Pre 9/11 I would think nothing of saying to my partner at the airport "Keep that up and you will never make it to your destination".

 

Post 9/11 you do not make this kind of joke. With all the press of people getting booted off a plane for intoxication, you cant put yourself in a position of being perceived as a threat.

 

My take on it now is

I am going to believe the OP that there was nothing illegal ONLY stupidity.

I am of the opinion that either the captain was misinformed or made a judgement call for the safety of the ship and other passengers.

 

The OP should get a full refund of the monies paid. RCCL should not profit as the PAX were denied passage but did nothing illegal or specifically not allowed.

 

The OP should NOT get anything more as by their own admission were stupid and should not profit by their stupidity.

 

RCCL does NOT owe the PAX an apology.

 

Jeff

 

At $0.02 per post, this thread still couldn't buy one of RCI's ratty pool towels.

[CruisingMachine]

Oh please, not that presumption again. Surely your legal system is more sophisticated than to convict or prejudice someone on what they might be presumed to do?

 

It seems we have two lines of thought for the conviction stance.

 

1. The stuff they found was not tested as positive for THC but was in fact artificial THC that does not test positive. Ergo, they were trying to smuggle in illegal drugs.

2. The stuff they found was in fact tobacco and its placement was used as a test to see if they could get away with doing something illegal at a later time. Ergo, they had done nothing illegal at the time of boarding.

So, which is it?

 

It doesn't matter. Either works. This is not the "legal system" at work here. There is not a jury and a court trial. The security personnel and captain have to make a decision based on evidence, not conduct a 3-month trial. Capeche?

 

Here's a quick review for you. The guy packs a highly suspicious illegal-looking substance with a smoking pipe in a can with a false bottom for the expressed purpose of avoiding detection by port security. Customs officials are quite familiar with people trying to sneak things by them in such cans, either illegal items, or legal items as a "test" to see if it would work with illegal items. Additionally, the can wasn't packed in a suitcase or toiletries bag that would stay put in the stateroom during the cruise. No, just happens to pack it in his "dive bag". This is bag that he would taking with him off the ship in ports of call and bringing back with him. IF one were using security in PC as a "test run" to see if he would be able to bring illegal drugs back with him from the ports onto the ship, guess what bag he would use for the test run? The "dive bag". The one he chose to use.

 

You would have to be stupid and naive to NOT think that a test run is EXACTLY what that was about. Again, port security and the captain are not bound to conduct a trial to determine if they can prove with 100% certainty that the passenger was planning something illegal or just plain stupid. They have to use their best judgment, and that is exactly what they did, and it wasn't even a close call.