The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[retiredgram]

Exactly right. For one thing, the only one that's guaranteed to make money out of this is the lawyers! And, I am sure we'll never hear the final result, if there is a settlement. We will never know what the true story is.

You are right about this. I also think since DH was, in the eyes of the captain, "high risk", he will be denied ever boarding on RC. We will never know.

[graphicguy]

Gotta say....like others, I've really received an education here. I didn't know what hooka was. I didn't even know there was synthetic MJ. And, I'm a child of the '80s, who up until now, thought I had run into just about every illicit (and some allegedly illicit) drugs while in college. Admittedly, I was more the beer/vodka/gin drinker than the "druggie". But, I saw plenty fellow students that belonged to the latter group to have seen coked out, stoned, trashed kids who were as we said..."messed up".

 

Bottom line, I don't know of the OP's intent. Maybe the husband was looking for a way to "smuggle" some weed, or synth weed, or something else. Nothing I've read gives me any indication that was his intent. But, maybe it was...who knows?

 

The fact that the OP omitted some info, and that RCCL tried to "fudge", dance around and back track with some info, tells me that there was plenty of jockeying for position here, on both sides.

 

The OP/couple in question, based on those who have spoken to them, and based on their posts here, aren't remotely a threat or danger to themselves or anyone else. They had something that RCCL says was a controlled substance. But, how they can tell that, without administering a urine test, after ingestion, really doesn't jive with their stance.

 

The OP says it's some sort of legal herb. Local authorities tests can't disprove their claims.

 

So, that should have been the end of the issue.

 

RCCL made a poor decision to boot them off the cruise. To add insult to injury, they won't refund the cruise price to them. Sounds like the OP's husband used poor judgement by putting something in an aerosol can that caused the suspicion to begin with. Was it illegal? Doesn't sound like it. No one was arrested....not even a ticket was issued.

 

With the plethora of recent bad publicity surrounding the entire cruise industry, this was a poor move on RCCL's part, regardless of their reasoning (which was flawed to begin with). RCCL specifically seems to be evoking an attitude of rigidness and intolerance. People spend a lot of money to cruise. I would hope that RCCL will be more accommodating. This shows they're not.

 

It took me a long time to come back to RCCL (after originally cruising on LOS several years ago). My first experience wasn't the best cruise I had been on, wasn't the worst, either. It was.....ummmm....mediocre. I'm leaving on the Allure in a couple of weeks. It's my hope that this stiff, rigid attitude has changed.

 

Best of luck to the OP. I'm hoping RCCL does right by you.

[CP3o]

As you can see I am fairly new and tend to lurk rather than post but I wanted to share a different view. I am not judging right or wrong or if a refund is due.

 

Having had first hand experience with "adverse" reaction to synthetic THC, I think that there is an area of risk that is being overlooked and given that we really don't know what was in the "tobacco" product I would be concerned about medical risks. Adverse reactions can include loss of consciousness, vomiting, aggressive behavior and rapid heartbeat. Given the volumes of unknown about the product, I would err on the side of not taking the risk.

 

Thank you, I've been trying to get this idea accross. People keep saying it is unfair to be thrown off for tobacco but there is NO proof that it was just tobacco. You only have the OPs word on that and that became suspect when she could not name the product and when her husband chose to hide it and she failed to admit that.

 

I think we should assume RCCL knows how to test for pot and it was NOT pot. But that doesn't prove it was what she said it was either.

 

It could very well be something treated with a chemical much more dangerous than pot and testers guessed it was that product and informed the captain but had no conclusive test to prove it (maybe that was why the tested 3 times?).

 

Guns and knives and candles are legal but against RCCL policy. This stuff is in a gray area, dangerous but legal in some states and not in others, and not specifically mentioned in the RCCL policies so captain makes a choice, probably guided by the fact it was hidden so throughly.

 

I wish this lady got to cruise; that her husband got his container and product tossed and egg on his face. But she has not represented the situation in a totally honest light and they brought this on themselves.

 

They can call it an expensive lesson learned, we've all had them to some extent.

[utkikr21]

Round and round we go.... Where we stop nobody knows!!!!!:p

[mrsdoc3]

I've seen a few posts about it, but there's still these 2 questions:

 

Why would RCI say that the substance was illegal even though port security said it was legal?

 

Why would RCI say that the substance was destroyed even though port security says it was returned to the owner?

 

Something still isn't adding up with RCI's depiction of events.

 

It could be the RCI tested it, and their test revealed an illegal substance. They could have then given the substance to the police, thinking they were going to destroy it. Then the police tested it, using a different kind of test than was available to RCI, and they discovered that it was not an illegal substance. So, they did not destroy it.

 

It could bet that the RCI spokesman stated an opinion (or an assumption) -- that it would be destroyed -- as a fact -- it WAS destroyed.

[beer1234]

I'm beginning to get a little concerned about you folks. The last 1000 posts say nothing different than the first 100 yet you continue.

[teajak]

I'm with you, I dont get that either!

A lot of us have been saying that since day one but some people just refuse to understand or believe it.:confused:

[hubofhockey]

I'm beginning to get a little concerned about you folks. The last 1000 posts say nothing different than the first 100 yet you continue.

 

everyone was just waiting for you to post that.

[swwake]

Did anyone notice that Mary's husband's name changed from Charles in the Freedom roll call thread to Robert in the post-cruise stories?

[reallyitsmema]

Did anyone notice that Mary's husband's name changed from Charles in the Freedom roll call thread to Robert in the post-cruise stories?

Yes, it has been pointed out a few times in this thread. The original news article had their first names and within an hour or so of it being posted, the names were changed. If you look at the incident report, they are now referring to the husband by his middle name, his first and last are blacked out.

[BeagleOne]

 

At what point does this thread take up too much bandwidth or do other threads that this forum is here for suffer because of this slug fest?

 

If the Cruise Critic powers-that-be had concerns about bandwidth I think they'd be editing some of the signatures that are 10X longer than the actual posts! :D

[BeagleOne]

Yes, it has been pointed out a few times in this thread. The original news article had their first names and within an hour or so of it being posted, the names were changed. If you look at the incident report, they are now referring to the husband by his middle name, his first and last are blacked out.

 

Which is kind of entertaining, since if you go to the roll call thread, the couple's real names, hometown, and email address are right there for anyone to see. Or at least they were a few days ago.

[reallyitsmema]

Which is kind of entertaining, since if you go to the roll call thread, the couple's real names, hometown, and email address are right there for anyone to see. Or at least they were a few days ago.

Shhhhhhh, I know, I saw them there when I pointed out the name change originally. I never posted them here so that if people wanted to find them, they needed to do their own legwork.;):p

[CruisingMachine]

But, in the incident report and article posted on the front page of cruise critic...the Port Authority also called it tobacco. They said they found a pipe with the "tobacco". They later refer to it as "hookah herb", which actually has no tobacco.

 

Aha! You caught the PA in a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Great detective work. :D

[bigeagle12]

Yes, it has been pointed out a few times in this thread. The original news article had their first names and within an hour or so of it being posted, the names were changed. If you look at the incident report, they are now referring to the husband by his middle name, his first and last are blacked out.

 

Robert is actually his first name. Incident report is Last Name, First Name Middle Name

[SevenSeas1492]

I think Judge Judy is called for here. If anyone can get at the truth, she can!

[aurelius180]

Which is kind of entertaining, since if you go to the roll call thread, the couple's real names, hometown, and email address are right there for anyone to see. Or at least they were a few days ago.

 

 

Even more interesting is her initial concern pre-cruise about being denied boarding...for contact solution. :rolleyes:

[CruisingMachine]

That ship has already sailed.

 

When you have an organization being run by the equivalent of circus clowns, these things happen.:rolleyes:

 

Best Cruise Line NINE years in a row, so named by the premiere travel agency publication Travel Weekly. Just imagine how good they would be if they had a genius such as yourself running the show! :D

[reallyitsmema]

Even more interesting is her initial concern pre-cruise about being denied boarding...for contact solution. :rolleyes:

While I agree she did say that, I was part of that thread too, you really need to put it in context. There was a large thread talking about going to the naughty room during spring break and someone commented about having to go because of contact lens solution. She commented about her small sample bottles of solution that she gets from work and that they better not stop her for those.

[richstowe]

A lot of very funny posts. A big thank you to OP for allowing people to post that RCI

can and should do anything it wants to anyone who does anything stupid or questionable. :rolleyes:

Hope someday RCI repays the favor to you.

[Karma5]

I'm beginning to get a little concerned about you folks. The last 1000 posts say nothing different than the first 100 yet you continue.

 

It's an interesting subject. The bottom line is that , there is still more to this story that this board will most likely never now.

[emdia43]

I think Judge Judy is called for here. If anyone can get at the truth, she can!

 

 

She would size it up with her usual aplomb- " if a story doesn't make sense, don't try to figure it out - it doesn't make sense because it's not TRUE! "

[GriffinAlexander]

I think Judge Judy is called for here. If anyone can get at the truth, she can!

 

PUT YOUR BIG GIRL PANTIES ON! GROW UP! STOP MAKING BABIES! THERE'S ONLY ONE ATTITUDE HERE AND IT'S MINE! BIRD, SEND A COPY OF THIS TAPE TO THE WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THAT'LL FIX THEIR WAGON!

 

(Someone did ask for Judge Judy - In her absence I thought I'd give a few of her most famous quotes)

[Charles4515]

As if the answer to the question is any or your, mine, or anyone elses business. It is RCI's ship and RCI's decision. Neither the company, or its captains, have any interest in keeping people from cruising for no reason.

 

I agree with that 100%. Not only that but they depend on the revenue from what we spend onboard to make a profit and the gratuities we give the crew to keep the crew happy. The cabins need to be filled. The cruise fare alone is not sufficient.

[FLACRUISER99]

Well, if all the passengers want is their money back, their will be no lawyers involved because it is a small claim. All RCI has to do here is refund their purchase paid and the passengers may not make too big of a deal out of this. The passengers posted on this thread and so far have never indicated that they want any kind of huge settlement or a looking to make any kind of financial score out of this. RCI's own greed here is the only thing that will get them into trouble. If they had given the passengers a full refund, it wouldn't have come to this. That Corporate RCI hasn't handled this well and properly instructed its cruise personnel how to deal with a situation like this is beyond stupid.

I think they only had to wait a while and RCI would have refunded their fare. Anyone that has had to deal with receiving a refund from RCI knows it's a slow process and can take months. You really cant blame them the just can't pass out $3000 with out investigating all the facts.