The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[sleepless]

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.

 

 

Additionally, people keep stating that they were thrown off for carrying "tobacco". The original OP's DH did indicate that the product name is Hookah Herb, and resemble weed.

 

My research further indicates that Hookah Herb is not tobacco.

[bigeagle12]

You can only take so much of it, you know? It baffles me how one party can be a liar but the other party is a "omitter". One part is a liar for saying it was destroyed, yet the other party calling it tobacco (which hookah herb isn't) is so reliable. It's like freakn politics. Your side can say and do no wrong, yet the other side are lying, cheating crooks for doing the exact same thing. Maybe it's a good thing I don't get it. It means I am fair, I guess. :o

 

BTW - thoroughly enjoyed Key West when we were there in February. Wish we had more than one day. Think we may come back for at least a long weekend.

 

Thanks for several pieces of information you provided prior to our trip. I kept my eyes peeled all day incase we bumped into you on the street .. but I am sure you stay away from the crowds on the days ships are in port.

[lori450]

ok, then I think we are thinking of the same one!

 

 

 

Me too cause I went there all on my own and then when I read your posts, I started thinking Oh thank God I'm not the only perv. :D

 

Omitter vs liar. Perfect. Same/Same. Yeah, I felt sympathy at first even though I thought there was more to the story. I thought they were due a refund. But the fake bottomed hair spray can did me in as did the reveal that hookah herb is not tobacco. Having a friend who has worked in Drug Enforcement at the airport has also opened my eyes to the stuff people will try. It was a boneheaded action and actions have consequences.

 

I love it! Boneheaded action.... it's perfect!

[broberts]

I believe the ticket contract, paragraph 8e, covers this situation. Specifically the part that gives the cruise line and/or the captain sole discretion to deny boarding if a passenger is "believed to present a possible danger [or] security risk". It doesn't even say that that discretion has to be reasonable. (It does, however, have to be legal, since you can't contract to something illegal. So the captain can't deny boarding to someone based solely on their race or religion.) Whether that's fair or not, we can argue about. But that's what the contract says.

 

8g says that the cruise line doesn't owe refunds to passengers who are not onboard for any reason when the ship leaves.

 

Don't jump all over me for pointing this out. People have asked what in the contract gave the captain the right to deny boarding to the couple, or what provision of the contract they violated, and I found it. If you don't think it's a fair provision, or you think that the captain's discretion wasn't reasonable in this case, fine. But please don't shoot the messenger.

 

Best wishes to Mrs. Evaluator!

 

I don't think anyone is denying the Captain the right to deny boarding. Certainly I don't. However the clauses you mention don't present any regulation that the people violated.

 

My problem is not so much with the couple being denied passage as with the fact that the cruise line is refusing to refund the fare.

 

Had the couple actually done something that threatened the safety and / or security of the ship or anyone on it, I wouldn't have a problem with the events. But that is not what happened. The Captain (more likely a surrogate) decided that the people might do something in the future that while it wouldn't pose a hazard to the ship might be illegal. Their basis for this was the way in which something, (something perfectly legal), was packed. I have to say that I find this very troubling.

[broberts]

. . .Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.

 

Seems to me that if someone tries to hide something it's because someone had something to hide.;)

 

An even simplre explanation is that a person was packing something and stuffed it into an otherwise unused space in a container also being packed. What makes this actually more likely is that is doesn't require the assumption of motive.

[lori450]

Just another 2 cents worth. I think the basic problem lies with preventative action (such as what this Captain took) and actual fault. From what I have decerned, it really sounds like the man was trying out a scheme and was caught. The cruise line says that his behavior was considered risky. I agree. Whether intentional or stupidity, he made some poor choices/judgment calls. Based on his action and the cruise contract he was denied boarding. He'll probably get his money back, but it's all just gamesmanship. Personally, if you want to play you have to be willing to pay, but unfortunately, our society doesn't work that way anymore.

[Pushka]

Amazing. After all of these posts, and you still don't get it. I, nor the captain have to KNOW his intent. If he acts in a way that has every indication of smuggling drugs based on many years of knowledge and experience, guess what? THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH

 

Wow, it's amazing how gullible some people are. The captain of the FOS ain't one of 'em.:rolleyes:

 

There are many posters here who have opposing opinions but who remain civil and constructive in their posts so that all might learn something. So a good discussion ensues that might make others think again. But your posts are always rude and personal. Makes me want to dig my heels in further in opposing your position.

[Ocean Boy]

I don't think anyone is denying the Captain the right to deny boarding. Certainly I don't. However the clauses you mention don't present any regulation that the people violated.

 

My problem is not so much with the couple being denied passage as with the fact that the cruise line is refusing to refund the fare.

 

Had the couple actually done something that threatened the safety and / or security of the ship or anyone on it, I wouldn't have a problem with the events. But that is not what happened. The Captain (more likely a surrogate) decided that the people might do something in the future that while it wouldn't pose a hazard to the ship might be illegal. Their basis for this was the way in which something, (something perfectly legal), was packed. I have to say that I find this very troubling.

 

And you know that isn't what happened because you were there?

[wolfganghowell]

An even simplre explanation is that a person was packing something and stuffed it into an otherwise unused space in a container also being packed.

 

One big flaw with your statement. The container was a fake hairspray can. The ONLY purpose in packing it was to conceal what was in it. Sure, I stuff things in little unused spaces all the time - but they are essentials that have a purpose.

[aurelius180]

One big flaw with your statement. The container was a fake hairspray can. The ONLY purpose in packing it was to conceal what was in it. Sure, I stuff things in little unused spaces all the time - but they are essentials that have a purpose.

 

That and the fact the Husband already admitted he intentionally concealed it. The "he was just using up free space" went out the window long ago. But why should they let facts get in the way of their argument?

[bigeagle12]

I am beginning to think this is the chain of events:

1. RCI found and tested - test was positive for "controlled" substance
   
2. Turned matter over to local authorities since RCI can not charge them - assuming the substance would be destroyed by local authorities
   
3. Asked them to get off ship (to let police handle the matter) - Knowing they were not going to let them back on
   
4. When police tests could not confirm or deny presence of illegal substance. Police could not charge them and chose not to pursue any additional testing (which Aquahound said is common)
   
5. They wanted back on ship - Captain said no - think his decision was probably based on events that already occured before they got off ship
   

[jonbgd]

I am beginning to think this is the chain of events:

1. RCI found and tested - test was positive for "controlled" substance
   
2. Turned matter over to local authorities since RCI can not charge them - assuming the substance would be destroyed by local authorities
   
3. Asked them to get off ship (to let police handle the matter) - Knowing they were not going to let them back on
   
4. When police tests could not confirm or deny presence of illegal substance. Police could not charge them and chose not to pursue any additional testing (which Aquahound said is common)
   
5. They wanted back on ship - Captain said no - think his decision was probably based on events that already occured before they got off ship
   

Sounds logical to me

[aurelius180]

I am beginning to think this is the chain of events:

1. RCI found and tested - test was positive for "controlled" substance
   
2. Turned matter over to local authorities since RCI can not charge them - assuming the substance would be destroyed by local authorities
   
3. Asked them to get off ship (to let police handle the matter) - Knowing they were not going to let them back on
   
4. When police tests could not confirm or deny presence of illegal substance. Police could not charge them and chose not to pursue any additional testing (which Aquahound said is common)
   
5. They wanted back on ship - Captain said no - think his decision was probably based on events that already occured before they got off ship
   

 

 

Stop with all that logic! You Cheerleader!! :p

[enyliram]

if a passenger is denied boarding because they exhibit symptoms of illness it is my understanding they do not get their cruise fare returned. is this correct? IF YES, then why should the original OP couple denied boarding, be entitled to a cruise fare refund?

[Hunwolf]

Wow...you guys still going at this?

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[tanelicus]

are the folk actually there when it occurred. I am sure that based upon the party involved is how they viewed their side of the story, and the way it played out.

 

Everything else is pure speculation.

[lori450]

are the folk actually there when it occurred. I am sure that based upon the party involved is how they viewed their side of the story, and the way it played out.

 

Everything else is pure speculation.

 

Yes, it is. But it seems that we are all enjoying speculating. I see this simply as a lively conversation. Everyone hold up your glass - Cheers!

[bigeagle12]

Stop with all that logic! You Cheerleader!! :p

 

I am a Cheerleader .. not for RCI .. but for any company to make and enforce rules.

[tanelicus]

that we are talking about this far more than RCI is. Its a huge company, and this is just one episode of what are probably many.

 

Don't get me wrong I am sure this is on the radar becaus of the amount of interest. As far as being an impetus for change or action, I would believe that nobody in RCI is giving it two seconds of thought and definitely not losing sleep over it.

 

The way it probably plays out, is that their legal team is involved, gives the talking points to the heads. From there the message flows down.

 

Just my take on all of this.

 

People in reality, this really isn't all that big of a deal. Weird stuff happens all the time with large companys.

 

I have seen at least 10 weird things at Walmart alone ;)

[cruisersnorkler]

Because it was not against the law and there was no crime, I think RCCL should refund their money. It was RCCL saying they could not board. They probably wanted to bring their favorite smokes for the wonderful vacation. I am not a smoker, in fact I hate smoking. but in this case their money should of been refunded. 3,000 is a lot of money for most of us.

[tanelicus]

Yes, it is. But it seems that we are all enjoying speculating. I see this simply as a lively conversation. Everyone hold up your glass - Cheers!

 

I already made somebody very angry over my lively conversation and didn't even mean to. LOL

[sjb317]

Yes it is a major problem right now. Possession of ANY amount here in Ga is now a felony. Anything under and ounce of marijuana is only a misdemeanor.

 

Im still gonna have to be proven to that spice/k2 is in fact what the couple had in their possession before I believe it though.

 

I guess some will say Im emotionally attached because I talked to the lady a bunch in my roll call thread for months and she seemed like a very nice and sweet person that was very much looking forward to her cruise. I dont care though. It just all smells very fishy to me from both sides.

 

She did seem like a very nice and sweet person but I work with pregnant women who deliver addicted babies and I can tell you that the majority of these women seem like very nice and sweet people.

 

Sherri:)

[aurelius180]

I am a Cheerleader .. not for RCI .. but for any company to make and enforce rules.

 

Quite honestly I wish they actively enforced more of their rules. It doesn't seen logical that they wouldn't clear out a chair hog for fear of upsetting a rude passenger yet have no problem denying boarding for no reason.

 

I can accept mistakes can be made but this story didn't add up. As much as I was beginning to side with the OP in the initial thread.

[tanelicus]

Quite honestly I wish they actively enforced more of their rules. It doesn't seen logical that they wouldn't clear out a chair hog for fear of upsetting a rude passenger yet have no problem denying boarding for no reason.

 

I can accept mistakes can be made but this story didn't add up. As much as I was beginning to side with the OP in the initial thread.

 

You may just get what you wish for and it might not be pleasant.

 

I for one think they have the right formula for allowing the most people to have a pleasant and fun experience while also keeping order in the boat.

[Heidils]

Destroy every good conversation any time they get involved. Plus they tend to be a litte dramatic when an issue gets their goat. LOL

 

Here ya...seems those in POWER love it. They seem to need to be fed as well.