The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[temple1]

You're 100% correct.

 

There are three ways that people are looking at this.

 

Group #1 - They could care less. Life goes on.

 

Group #2 - They think that the cruise line had the right to do what they did.

 

Group #3 - They think that couple should have been allowed to cruise or get a full refund.

 

Many are not going to agree. Those that think Royal did wrong can move on to another cruise line. I don't think Royal will miss them.

 

I doubt that we ever hear the true story as to what happened here. Either Royal will settle and make the couple sign a statement to keep their mouth shut or the couple will just move on if they were indeed trying were wrong in their actions.

 

Pretty much - I think there were a few things RCCL doesn't want to publicize and the couple doesn't want to discuss. ;)

[Big_G]

Hmm if there are indeed multiple tests, this could change things. If there was indeed a positive test, I have no sympathy for OP or her DH.

 

Paul, is it really a "positive" result or simply a "look further" result? From what you said above, if a legal substance would cause this result it seems hard to call it "positive." And it is still inconcsistent with the CC article. Any comment Mr. Askin?

 

I am not familiar with these tests, but cannot understand why the police would stop at the THC test if the earlier test showed the stuff was positive for something. Still not adding up.

 

It's called a presumptive positive. Meaning: it's presumed by the field test to be whatever you're testing for but not absolute evidence such as a toxicology report would provide. It provides officers probable cause to make an arrest without having to go to a lab for a toxicology report first. Once the arrest was made, the substance would have to be submitted to the state lab for a 'Tox' report in order to prosecute.

[EVALUATOR]

NEWS FLASH!!!!

 

...He says RCCL's test is much more "broad spectrum" and did test positive for a questionable substance. ...

 

Of course their testing is better. How else could they put that label on the food in the Windjammer and call that stuff honey stung chicken.

 

You can't tell by the taste and look. Only chemical analysis could confirm it's true identity.

 

PCPD could test it, but they would never know what it was, only that it wouldn't test positive for KFC.:eek:

[BecciBoo]

and second I am calling BS on this one. Broader spectrum.... really?

 

Look, I emailed Mr. Fain, his assistant called me to reassure us. He asked if I had seen the news item on Cruise Critic and I said I had. He said he appreciated our patronage and happy we were RCCL cruisers. I asked about the incident and he said what I reported. I just thought you'd all want to know what he said. He wouldn't go into much detail but he did say exactly what I posted. I didn't have to tell anyone. And how is my sharing my personal phone call indiscretionary? He just basically confirmed what the article on Cruise Critic said anyway. You people kill me.:rolleyes: There is just no winning with you people. If you want to call me a lier Langley, go ahead, you and tanelicious should both be ashamed of your slander. Why would I make up something like this? For that matter, why do I even care what you think....I should have my head examined for even sharing this with you. Here's a photo of my phone. I guess I manufactured that too, aurelius180 already told you its valid and I posted here just after the call as you can see the time stamp:

So much for the friendly fellow cruisers here on CC. I am not the guilty party here, I didn't smuggle anything, didn't lie about anything, just voiced my concern over this incident and yet you and others have come on here and slandered me with a vehemence. Have a wonderful day.

[Mac303]

There are approximately 25 seperate test kits for the different drugs available.

 

Currently testing for Spice and K2, is a urine based laboratory test only.

[Big_G]

 

I am not familiar with these tests, but cannot understand why the police would stop at the THC test if the earlier test showed the stuff was positive for something. Still not adding up.

 

Because they have no other field tests available and no offense to the officer but it would be a huge waste of time to pull a case number, seize the substance, and submit it to 'tox' only to find out it wasn't illegal. Depending on your department's evidence officer and/or tox lab, others might be a little miffed if the officer isn't really sure what it is.

[PhoenixDawgCruising]

Look, I emailed Mr. Fain, his assistant called me to reassure us. He asked if I had seen the news item on Cruise Critic and I said I had. He said he appreciated our patronage and happy we were RCCL cruisers. I asked about the incident and he said what I reported. I just thought you'd all want to know what he said. He wouldn't go into much detail but he did say exactly what I posted. I didn't have to tell anyone. And how is my sharing my personal phone call indiscretionary? He just basically confirmed what the article on Cruise Critic said anyway. You people kill me.:rolleyes: There is just no winning with you people. If you want to call me a lier Langley, go ahead, you and tanelicious should both be ashamed of your slander. Why would I make up something like this? For that matter, why do I even care what you think....I should have my head examined for even sharing this with you. Here's a photo of my phone. I guess I manufactured that too, aurelius180 already told you its valid and I posted here just after the call as you can see the time stamp:

 

 

 

So much for the friendly fellow cruisers here on CC. I am not the guilty party here, I didn't smuggle anything, didn't lie about anything, just voiced my concern over this incident and yet you and others have come on here and slandered me with a vehemence. Have a wonderful day.

 

Don't feel the need to prove yourself. This entire thread is full of people that have way too much invested in an issue that does not involve them.

 

You have presented what took place between yourself and the party from RCCL that called you, that's all you have to do, this isn't a trial. If people on CC don't want to believe you, who cares, this is the internet and all people on it are irrelevant in real life.:)

[d4nigirl]

So, on the way to the port, I had a bologna sandwich. I put it in a plastic sandwich bag. I ate the sandwich and put the empty baggie in my pocket. While tipping the porter, I dropped the baggie. Security saw it and tested the powder in it for cocaine. It tested negative. It was flour off the bottom of the bread. But because there is no field test for flour, and the sandwich bag can be used for putting drugs in, I'm high risk???

 

Every LEO out there can only dream conviction was this easy.:eek:

 

Now I'm hungry.

[BecciBoo]

That's right, forgive me, it was tanelicious and some others. But the comment about indiscretion was also hurtful. I can't tell you what you have all done for my day. Lovely.:(

[Gayle V]

REmoved _ Answer to my question was emailed to me.

[Gayle V]

IMO, the bottom line isn't so much about the legality of substance itself, but more about the husband being labeled as "high risk." .

 

 

Am I the only one who's brain screams out "High risk of what?!" every time someone throws that into the conversation, as if it really means something. Really. There has to be someone else here, who realizes that the phrase "found to be high risk" means nothing if not followed by the word "of" stating something specific. As in an answer to.. the "risk of what?". It's not even a complete thought, and certainly is inadequate as an explanation of anything.

[BND]

Oh dear - I hardly called you a liar. I said you divulging the contents of a phone call was indiscreet. At no time did I say you were lying. Never.

 

Thanks.

 

Why is it indiscreet? It's more than likely the same answer any of us would be given had we asked.

[ryano]

That's right, forgive me, it was tanelicious and some others. But the comment about indiscretion was also hurtful. I can't tell you what you have all done for my day. Lovely.:(

 

I would NOT let ANYONE on this board rent space in your head like that. Dont let it bother you. Everyone on here including myself, is nothing more than an anonymous poster banging their thoughts and opinions away on a keyboard about an issue that doesnt even involve us in the least.

 

You will never meet a large majority of these people in your entire life. Who cares what they think?

 

But yes, you are right. There is no winning with a bunch of folks on here.

 

I would not sweat this in the least if I were you.

[kasane]

Bags are xrayed, hand checked and/or checked by dogs. So what was this guy trying to hide from by putting this in a baggie and then in a can inside his luggage. Xrays would show something in the tin (in the bag). A dog would probably find something to alert on even if was in a baggy and then in the can. The only thing this method of concealment would work for was to avoid a hand check. Drug dogs check ships in foreign ports as well and passengers have been tossed off there. Try explaining "legal, scented" tobacco to Mexican, Bahamian or other nations' police forces. I think the concealment was to hid it from the ship staff who would be required to report on substances found in a room. A balcony neighbour could report smelling suspicious substances as well. The long odds were that they could have been on the cruise, reported by staff or drug dog, bounced off and told to find their own way home. An expensive lesson either way. And the captain/staff have file tons of reports on it. Better not to have the second scenario happen at all.

[sleepless]

Ryano .. I really am not picky on you .. you were just the most recent post to state "LEGAL"

 

It was not proven legal .. it was tested because it was suspicious .. could not be proven legal since that test does not exist at the port .. therefore may still have been illegal ..

 

So suspicious + still may be illegal + stupid = good decision by Captain ;)

 

 

I am glad that I am not the only one who gets it.

[jonbgd]

That's right, forgive me, it was tanelicious and some others. But the comment about indiscretion was also hurtful. I can't tell you what you have all done for my day. Lovely.:(

If Im one of the others...... I think you overreacted to my question.... There was no malice in my question.

 

I was aking why they would call you (as in) If you know Mr Fain personally or his EA. (or) Who do you know that would get a response that a CC editor couldnt

[mjldvlks]

Because they have no other field tests available and no offense to the officer but it would be a huge waste of time to pull a case number, seize the substance, and submit it to 'tox' only to find out it wasn't illegal. Depending on your department's evidence officer and/or tox lab, others might be a little miffed if the officer isn't really sure what it is.

So "presumptive positive" doesn't mean much does it?

[BecciBoo]

You will never meet a large majority of these people in your entire life. Who cares what they think?

 

But yes, you are right. There is no winning with a bunch of folks on here.

 

I would not sweat this in the least if I were you.

 

Thank you Ryan, you are kind. The trouble is, I feel as if I know a lot of folks on here and have gotten to know some of them in person, such as Rick whom I have cruised with. I am pretty disillusioned right now. I would like folks on here to be decsent and kind to one another and be able to share their thoughts and disagree without being labeled or accused of... anything. But you are right, that must be impossible on blogs like this. . Sorry I am such an over sensative, naive loser to most of you. And I am not trying to be "dramatic" just truthful.

[d4nigirl]

Did anyone notice one of flavors of halo hooka

 

Carnival candy

 

Classic

[BecciBoo]

If Im one of the others...... I think you overreacted to my question.... There was no malice in my question.

 

I was aking why they would call you (as in) If you know Mr Fain personally or his EA. (or) Who do you know that would get a response that a CC editor couldnt

 

I have met the man and spoken with him but I doubt he'd even remember me like many others who have met him who post here. RCCL is just a company who takes things like this seriously I guess and I am a Diamond member (don't get the impression I have a fat head about that either). Don't ask me, but it did occur. I thought it would interest some, but apparently they are more interested in being nasty. I am quite touchy after all the things that have been said so I am sorry if I accused you of anything.

[Sandy Sails]

Deleted - don't care anymore. Hate RCCL anyway. So militant.

[Aquahound]

If Im one of the others...... I think you overreacted to my question.... There was no malice in my question.

 

Same goes for me. I hope im not one of the "others." All I've done throughout was try to bring some light to the subject based on my field of expertise.

 

But in return, now I'm seeing I have too much time invested, apparently.

 

Why can't we all just agree that we don't know all the facts?

[EVALUATOR]

I only have a couple of things to say on this:

 

1) Passengers have sued RCCL and won (I personally know of someone in England who won a lawsuit).

 

Any chance it was the long thread about the volcano disruption last year?

 

Anybody remember that one and what was the final outcome?

[sleepless]

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

 

 

Actually, it does state that the subject is denied boarding. It also says that it is not narcotics, and tested to not be weed. Weed is not a narcotic - it is a controlled substance; two different things. A synthetic substance would not test positive for THC.

 

The agents knew what it was not, but were not able to properly identify exactly what it is, in that short amount of time.

[Kristi Williamson]

I guess I'm in the minority on this. The article clearly states that the Port Authority most certainly DID test the substance, so those of you saying that they didn't do so are wrong. Here's the quote:

 

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.

 

Second, I've been reading some of the remarks that these passengers shouldn't have placed the tobacco where they did. Why? It's their stuff, it's NOT illegal, and they have every right to put the tobacco anywhere they choose to do so. They have every right to put anything they want in their suitcase that isn't a violation of the contract. Tobacco isn't a violation...Period. Therefore, it's a non-issue where it was found. They can shove tobacco up their behinds and it's not illegal. All that matters is that these people had a completely legal substance that may, or may not, have been questionable, which they willingly had tested and that test came back NEGATIVE, per the Port Authority WITH witnesses who were officers.

 

Finally, that anyone would be a cheerleader for RCI in this is completely mind boggling to me. It's bovine scatology, frankly. This couple did nothing wrong. Nothing. Nada. They had a legal substance which was proven to be legal and they were even willing to throw the substance away. One post even suggested something to the affect that because he had a pipe he MIGHT be going to buy weed and therefore shouldn't be allowed to board. Are you freakin' kidding me?! So because someone MIGHT do something they should be denied their pre-paid vacation?! Hell...that's ALL of us. We MIGHT drink to much and make an A$$ of ourselves. (we don't drink, but you get the point!) We MIGHT meet someone who swings at my husband because he has tatoos. There's a million "might" scenarios but that doesn't give anyone, including the Captain, the right to kick a passenger, who has done NOTHING wrong, off this ship. I'd lay 10 to 1 that most people who agree with these actions are non-smokers and are just jerks enough to allow that to overshadow the wrongfulness of these actions.

 

Once again, these people didn't DO anything wrong! Nothing. How can anyone justify RCI's actions? I'd sue their butts off and I absolutely think they'll win. At the end of the day, this couple didn't break the contract on ANY level. And unfortunately for RCI, they have witnesses and a test to prove it! The Captain doesn't get to determine someone is a "risk" because they smoke TOBACCO with a pipe. And there's not a law on the planet that says you can't pack your tobacco wherever you darn well want to! I'm sure some of you are going to jump up and down and say the "Captain" can do what he wants...unfortunately, you're wrong. If it's legal, within the contract, and not harming nor may harm another passenger, then he's as bound by that contract as the passengers are.

 

RCI will regret this mistake, in my opinion. They'd do much better to just give the people their measly 3000.00 dollars back and offer them a complimentary cruise for their embarrassment, loss of funds, and personal stress for carrying freakin' TOBACCO on in a hair spray can and being subjected to this crap for doing nothing illegal or wrong! :mad::confused:

 

RCI's already been caught lying so they can claim that they violated Guest Conduct Policy (shame on them!) Unfortunately, the PA, witnesses and the test results have shown that they're lying. Here's that quote:

 

"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.

 

Here's what the spokewoman for the PA had to say about that lie:

 

Harvey says that cruise line security actually returned the items to Robert following the negative test, contradicting RCI's claims that they were destroyed.