The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[EVALUATOR]

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.

 

How can they say it was handled entirely by the police department when the PD was asked to, and did test the tobacco?

 

They can say they have no intentions or pursuing the matter further.

 

But they did say there was no criminal activity.

[johneeo]

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;)

 

 

The Royal Offspring knows that is just what I would do.

 

Boy, his momma would be really P.O.'d

 

Then, when he finds out momma is leaving also, he knows that he is gonna need the help of god almighty for him to see the age of 16.

[teajak]

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

I stand corrected,thank you.;)

[grandmamlw]

If they are innocent, why hide it in the first place?

 

We will never know the whole truth. They say it wasn't weed but just exactly what was it. If it wasn't something they shouldn't have had on board why hide it!:confused:

 

That being said I still think RCCL may have had just cause for not letting them cruise. We really don't know all the facts, we were not there. But I do think RCCl would be better off to just refund them there money even if the cruise contract says they don't have to.

[teajak]

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!

I rest my case.:rolleyes:

[CruisingMachine]

OK, you can be in complete agreement, and you could possibly be wrong.

 

Can you not see that punishing someone for what you "think they might do" is totally wrong and unacceptable.

 

I am the Captain, I see that you brought cash on board. Hey, you could possibly buy drugs in a port and bring them on the ship. Hey, it is a POSSIBILITY, is it not?

 

Therefore, I throw you off the ship. Possible, huh?

 

And THAT is why YOU are NOT the Captain, and why the Captain they do have is expected to use sound judgment, not idiocy. The husband fits the CLASSIC example of a test run for getting illegal substances past security. The captain would have to be a naive fool to think otherwise.

[johneeo]

And THAT is why YOU are NOT the Captain, and why the Captain they do have is expected to use sound judgment, not idiocy.

 

Had the Captain used sound judgment, this thread would not exist.

[BeagleOne]

Had the HUSBAND used sound judgement, this thread would not exist.

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

Oy. Don't you all see this is pointless, at this point?:confused:

[dscott68]

OK, so the passengers hid a perfectly legal product in a hair spray can. Where in RCCL's contract for passage does it say such a thing is not allowed? What if I decided to put M&M's in there--is there any reason to kick me off without a refund? Seems to me that the punishment far outweighed the "crime."

 

I've seen numerous instances of Royal Caribbean and Celebrity treating the public poorly. I won't list them here, but they seem to have lost much of their concern for their customers. It has all led me to bid farewell to RCCL brands entirely. It's kind of a shame, since I truly loved cruising on the Equinox, but I don't want to trust a company that would do such things to paying, innocent passengers.

[mjldvlks]

Whether you side with the passengers or RCCL, here are the facts:

 

. . .

2. The port security found this hidden tobacco, causing them to be suspicious of a possible illegal substance, tested it, and at that time, by the results of their test, deemed it was an illegal substance.

. . .

4. The tobacco was later retested and found to be just that, tobacco.

 

That is not what the CC article says. It says:

 

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.

 

. . .

 

Port officials agree that the contraband was tobacco and not an illegal substance. Port Canaveral spokeswoman Rosalind Harvey tells Cruise Critic that the test, which she also says was witnessed by officers, came up negative. . . ."

 

They appear to be referring to a single test -- the same test. Both of these statements cannot be true. Either one of the statements is inaccurate or CC has reported it inaccurately.

[Big_G]

Had the Captain used sound judgment, this thread would not exist.

 

I think you're stuck on the pax's alleged intent to smuggle. What if that wasn't hookah tobacco? What if they let him on and it turned out to be spice or K2 and he smoked himself into a coma? What if he had slipped something else through the screening? I think the Captain may have just been covering his and the company's butt by not allowing them to re-board the ship. I think he was dealing with a potential unknown risk that was triggered by the passenger's own unusual behavior and chose the easiest way to prevent it.

[aurelius180]

What if I decided to put M&M's in there--is there any reason to kick me off without a refund?

 

It wasn't and no.

[Aquahound]

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.

 

Actually, the U.S. has jurisdiction on all cruises that embark and disembark in the U.S., regardless of flag. Heck, according to the Stepansky law, even many Florida laws apply throughout the cruise. But that still does not prevent the line from making its own rules and judgments.

 

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.

 

No problem, Dan. Glad I could help. :)

[sept10dsm]

Wow this thread took of more than the original! I guess the other closed

[Aquahound]

Had the Captain used sound judgment, this thread would not exist.

 

Had the HUSBAND used sound judgement, this thread would not exist.

 

Oy. Don't you all see this is pointless, at this point?:confused:

 

These 3 posts pretty much sum it all up.

 

Clear as mud.

[CruisingMachine]

Well, when it comes to common sense, a lot that is lacking in this thread.

 

As you stated, it is preoposterous that some folks are adamant that this could have been a trial run and that they could possibly have been planning to use the can to smuggle drugs. And even if it is proven factually that it was in fact a trial run and they had intent to someday hatch a plan to smuggle drugs, I do not believe that this could result as a violation of any law.

 

Common sense? We shall have none of that here, and we shall have none of that with RCI customer service and management teams. The more you read about RCI and they way they run their organization has to make one conclude they are run by a bunch of incompetent blithering idiots.

 

Don't know who pee'd in your cheerios, but even an incompetent, blithering idiot would not allow these people to board the ship after an obvious test of port/ship security.

[mjldvlks]

this is worse than the other post boring..boring...boring

if you have got 2bacco take it...

if you have got meds take them...

if they are legal no problem...

why make a drama out of a crises...

anyway BOLTONvsTOTTENHAM... on telly at 8 going to pub,anyone fancy a pint.

you can smoke in beer garden:D

 

Have pint for me. I am kind of supporting Bolton in this one. [after that whole Muamba thing I would like to see them stay up -- like to see him play again too, for that matter].

[mopartime]

I'm going to be sailing on Allure on July 1, so I think I'll just skip all this back and forth going nowhere jumble and go search for more info on the Allure. I will get more from it than here, so have fun squabbling over he said - they said.

[johneeo]

Don't know who pee'd in your cheerios, but even an incompetent, blithering idiot would not allow these people to board the ship after an obvious test of port/ship security.

 

As a blithering idiot, I would have let them on the ship.

 

As for testing port/ship security, it is done on every cruise.

 

One word:

 

RUMRUNNERS

[Lionesss]

WOW

Best thread in quite awhile.

Every time I have read a post, I say to myself ". . . boy how right they are" . . . then I read the next post and say, "They are right also"....

Damn So many good points of view.........

I have decided I'm not touching this one with a ten foot Pole.

Safe travels

[Ocean Boy]

The Royal Offspring knows that is just what I would do.

 

Boy, his momma would be really P.O.'d

 

Then, when he finds out momma is leaving also, he knows that he is gonna need the help of god almighty for him to see the age of 16.

 

Would that be an RCI ship's captain?

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

Don't know who pee'd in your cheerios, but even an incompetent, blithering idiot would not allow these people to board the ship after an obvious test of port/ship security.

 

So do you need to sign a Waiver for the whole "peeing in the cheerios" thing? Is there a fee, or is it included???:eek:

[GriffinAlexander]

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

 

priceless

[johneeo]

Would that be an RCI ship's captain?

 

Nope, he would really need heavenly intervention.