The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[EVALUATOR]

If "spice" is illegal, but you can't test something to prove it is spice, how do you convict someone of having the substance?

[BeagleOne]

Unless there are more statements than are quoted in the article, RCI did NOT say that they destroyed the "tobacco". The RCI spokewoman said the substance in question "was taken by law enforcement to be destroyed". There's a difference. If the RCI spokeswoman is merely reporting what law enforcement told her they were going to do, even if they end up not doing that, she's not lying.

 

The "tobacco" was NOT shown to be "legal in every way". As people have pointed out repeatedly, there is no quick test to prove that it was completely legal. From the information we have now, thanks to Becciboo, it seems like the RCI test indicated the presence of some kind of controlled substance. The subsequent, more specific PA test established that the "tobacco" was not pot. There's a HUGE difference between proving it wasn't pot and proving that it was completely legal.

 

The port spokewoman said that the substance tested negative for THC. She then stated definitively that it was Hookah Herb. I'd be interested to know how she KNOWS it was Hookah Herb, since, as far as I know, there's no test to establish that that is what it was. Perhaps, once it had tested negative for THC, the police decided the case would not be pursued by them, and accepted the couple at their word for what it was.

 

And where are the two quotations in which the PA people say that RCI is "flat out lying"?

 

I think a big part of the problem is that the quotations from the people involved have been misinterpreted in the CC article. Another part of the problem is that a lot of people don't understand the difference between criminal law and contract law.

[time4u2go]

If you look at the time of the "report" that was posted here. It has a time of 16:40 If I remember correctly. Not sure what time Muster is on this sailing but if the OP in question was not on the ship during Muster I believe there's something about not being able to sail. ????

 

Not true. They can do "personal" muster sessions for people. They in fact do this for people that board a cruise at ports other than the main embarkation/debarkation port.

[teajak]

Because the direct quote from the Port Authority, and therefore the only people that matter, is this:

 

Port officials agree that the contraband was tobacco and not an illegal substance. (it was actually hookah herb, but again, the PA fully agreed it was NOT illegal) And yes, there most certainly were tests per both RCI and the PA, regardless of what Aquahound says.

Therefore the only people that matter,what a laugh line that is. Pretty insulting to all of the other people involved.:eek:

[BND]

...sigh...

 

I don't "believe" anything. I'm merely quoting the article from the people who were there. That IS relevant. These passengers deserve to be treated with the same respect as anyone else who didn't break the law or the contract. The fact that some people don't like how they brought their hookah herb, tobacco, etc... on board is really irrelevant.

 

The fact that people have openly called the OP stupid and a liar is astounding when the Port Authority is openly AGREEING with her. How is that fair or right? I think it's almost grossly hateful to call her names because you don't like how they packaged something that the PA is openly saying was completely legal. Do you think they'd quote that to a news article if they didn't have the report to prove it?!

 

The poster was not honest. She left quite a bit out and said things that weren't true in her original thread, trying to get sympathy for her case. In my and many others minds, that makes her deceitful, which is lying.

[bigeagle12]

This doesn't address my other question...why did RCI say the substance was disposed of while PC Police said otherwise?

 

Don't know .. one side is not telling the truth .. or does not know the truth .. either way it is IRRELEVANT

[time4u2go]

Don't know .. one side is not telling the truth .. or does not know the truth .. either way it is IRRELEVANT

 

Maybe to you.

[Kristi Williamson]

Did you by chance read the original post from the OP in question? http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1622345

 

 

Only the very first page of entries on the day it was posted. I saw her original thread and I know she left out how they packaged the hookah herb/tobacco. It's irrelevant to me, as I've previously stated.

 

I know people keep coming back to that, and I even understand why, however I don't agree with judging her entire premise that they were wronged based on that one piece of info. The substance was proven to be legal while the ship was still docked, with multiple witnesses, based on the direct quotes from the PA. That's really all that matters to me. I don't think someone should be judged, or kicked off the ship, for bad decisions. We'd all have been kicked off at some point, I'd imagine, if that were held as absolute truth. It's easy to call someone else an idiot and ugly names and forget that you, and I've, done stupid things, too. I have no doubt I'll be imperfect again at some point...today. ;)

 

However, making a bad decision isn't the same as breaking the contract or the law. Once that substance was proven to be legal and returned to the passengers, where they packaged that substance was irrelevant in all ways to me.

[Rockfordcruiser]

Not true. They can do "personal" muster sessions for people. They in fact do this for people that board a cruise at ports other than the main embarkation/debarkation port.

 

Ok and do you think the Captain would have done this for these folks?

[johneeo]

I can't agree with that. That may not have done anything illegal, but they definitely did something wrong. Otherwise, they would have a head and camera full of cruise memories right now.

 

According to bigeagle12, and I quote:

 

RCI's test supposedly did test positive for some form of illegal substance.

[time4u2go]

Ok and do you think the Captain would have done this for these folks?

 

Uh...that wasn't the point. You indicated that you thought that because they weren't on board during muster, that they wouldn't be able to sail. I was simply pointing out that that is incorrect.

[Aquahound]

Wow. You need to understand that Aquahound is as expert as they come on CC when it comes to this subject. You do come across as angry and a bit defensive, almost as if it's you that is the subject. As he has said, no one knows the entire story.

 

Thank you BND. Don't sell yourself short. You know your way around this topic also. ;)

 

If "spice" is illegal, but you can't test something to prove it is spice, how do you convict someone of having the substance?

 

Well, good question. Actually, excellent question that may be relevant.

 

Right now, the easiest and most common practice for personal use amounts of suspected spice is to just send the person on their way and make it disappear. Some officers may even give it back on the premise they can't prove it to be illegal. Pretty much the only ways to prove it right now are urine tests, the presence of original packaging, and/or a confession.

[Hunwolf]

No. There are reports earlier in this thread that people have been kicked off for smuggling alcohol and supposedly this board is full of links but I have yet to find the first one.

 

For the most part, RCI does NOT kick people off their ships for smuggling with rumrunners even though rumrunners are a directly violations of their rules..........I have yet to see anything about a faux hairspray can in said rules though lol

 

That's what I figured. Honestly I don't give two ****s about the couple in question, but the hypocrisy here is all kinds of lolz.

 

People smuggle stuff all the time in direct violation of the pax contract (but not illegal per se) and it's at the discretion of the almighty who gets the hook. Hey if these folks might drop "bank" in the bars they'll probably let them slide.

 

The dollar signs are calling...

[Rockfordcruiser]

Only the very first page of entries on the day it was posted. I saw her original thread and I know she left out how they packaged the hookah herb/tobacco. It's irrelevant to me, as I've previously stated.

 

I know people keep coming back to that, and I even understand why, however I don't agree with judging her entire premise that they were wronged based on that one piece of info. The substance was proven to be legal while the ship was still docked, with multiple witnesses, based on the direct quotes from the PA. That's really all that matters to me. I don't think someone should be judged, or kicked off the ship, for bad decisions. We'd all have been kicked off at some point, I'd imagine, if that were held as absolute truth. It's easy to call someone else an idiot and ugly names and forget that you, and I've, done stupid things, too. I have no doubt I'll be imperfect again at some point...today. ;)

 

However, making a bad decision isn't the same as breaking the contract or the law. Once that substance was proven to be legal and returned to the passengers, where they packaged that substance was irrelevant in all ways to me.

 

So your saying the Captain shouldn't consider any of this and just let them back on board right? Nothing at all should have caused suspicion? This was all just clearly a misunderstanding? Every one packs tobacco and a pipe in a false bottom container and places it in their dive bag? Instead of carrying it on their persons or carry on bag in its original container? Not hat this has never happened before on a cruise ship or airliner right?

[Kristi Williamson]

This is a genuine question, so could those that are just being hateful please lay off just for a minute and let those that actually want to answer do so?

 

I keep seeing people say it hasn't been proven to not be illegal, it was just proven to NOT have THC in it. OK...let's say I agree (I'm not positive that I do because that isn't what the article claims the PA said, but let's work from here, OK?).

 

What other illegal substances, besides pot, looks like green tobacco? (please know that's a real question because I don't know of any) :confused:

[mechcc]

Wow! Some people can really get angry and upset about something that really doesn't effect them. But it has made for interesting reading.

 

If this comes to court - I'm thinking by this thread, that it will result in a hung jury and no one will win. Of course it will be a civil case and the fact that the passenger lied publicly, might just give the tip to RCL. That and the fact that they were not on the ship, they couldn't spend more money for RCL. Don't have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" in civil cases.

[bigeagle12]

According to bigeagle12, and I quote:

 

RCI's test supposedly did test positive for some form of illegal substance.

 

I already corrected that for you .. "controlled substance"

[EVALUATOR]

Well, good question. Actually, excellent question that may be relevant.

 

Right now, the easiest and most common practice for personal use amounts of suspected spice is to just send the person on their way and make it disappear. Some officers may even give it back on the premise they can't prove it to be illegal. Pretty much the only ways to prove it right now are urine tests, the presence of original packaging, and/or a confession.

 

But a urine test would only show that the person providing the urine used the spice. Not that the product they had was spice. That is unless you can actually get the spice to pee in a cup.:D

[room010]

The Captain has the final say and he decided, rightly or wrongly, not to allow these pax to sail. It may not be 'fair' but life's like that sometimes. Suck it up.

 

Armed with a few more relevant facts instead of the OPs original tale of woe which had - surprise - some significant omissions, if the tobacco/spice/whatever is legal, why did the pax go to so much trouble to conceal it? At best it was a very dumb move and rings loud alarm bells (or should) to anyone investigating.

[Goofyisme]

Only the very first page of entries on the day it was posted. I saw her original thread and I know she left out how they packaged the hookah herb/tobacco. It's irrelevant to me, as I've previously stated.

 

I know people keep coming back to that, and I even understand why, however I don't agree with judging her entire premise that they were wronged based on that one piece of info. The substance was proven to be legal while the ship was still docked, with multiple witnesses, based on the direct quotes from the PA. That's really all that matters to me. I don't think someone should be judged, or kicked off the ship, for bad decisions. We'd all have been kicked off at some point, I'd imagine, if that were held as absolute truth. It's easy to call someone else an idiot and ugly names and forget that you, and I've, done stupid things, too. I have no doubt I'll be imperfect again at some point...today. ;)

 

However, making a bad decision isn't the same as breaking the contract or the law. Once that substance was proven to be legal and returned to the passengers, where they packaged that substance was irrelevant in all ways to me.

 

Selecting the "facts" you like makes drawing conclusions soooo much easier.

[Aquahound]

What other illegal substances, besides pot, looks like green tobacco? (please know that's a real question because I don't know of any) :confused:

 

Spice/K2, and countless other brands of synthetic cannabis.

 

It is a major problem in the US right now.

[Hunwolf]

The Captain has the final say and he decided, rightly or wrongly, not to allow these pax to sail. It may not be 'fair' but life's like that sometimes. Suck it up.

 

Armed with a few more relevant facts instead of the OPs original tale of woe which had - surprise - some significant omissions, if the tobacco/spice/whatever is legal, why did the pax go to so much trouble to conceal it? At best it was a very dumb move and rings loud alarm bells (or should) to anyone investigating.

 

To me...this is probably the right answer.

 

To be fair though...we as future pax need to understand that we could get the gate because the captain is suspicious of us too (the way we look, mannerisms, actions, etc).

 

In all seriousness though...I hope cruise insurance adds a "surly and/or bitchy cruise captain" clause to counteract the "dumbace cruiser" clause

[Aquahound]

But a urine test would only show that the person providing the urine used the spice. Not that the product they had was spice. That is unless you can actually get the spice to pee in a cup.:D

 

If you have any idea how to make that happen, let me know. We can get rich together. ;)

[Rockfordcruiser]

To me...this is probably the right answer.

 

To be fair though...we as future pax need to understand that we could get the gate because the captain is suspicious of us too (the way we look, mannerisms, actions, etc).

 

I better tell my 10 year old to not get that tattoo sleeve now.

 

Just make sure the tat isn't a sinking cruise liner....;)

[Kristi Williamson]

So your saying the Captain shouldn't consider any of this and just let them back on board right? Nothing at all should have caused suspicion? This was all just clearly a misunderstanding? Every one packs tobacco and a pipe in a false bottom container and places it in their dive bag? Instead of carrying it on their persons or carry on bag in its original container? Not hat this has never happened before on a cruise ship or airliner right?

 

No, I have no problem with them being tested or screened and even stated that I understand the concern. However, once it was proven to not be an illegal substance the issue should have been dropped. Not illegal is still not illegal, whether you like how they packaged the very legal contraband or not. If it's legal, it's legal and no one....you, me, the Captain...should have had the right to remove the from the ship for not doing anything wrong. There's no question they should have been searched...and then been allowed to return to their room to enjoy their cruise and rethink packaging ideas for their next one!