The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[tanelicus]

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

 

With self depracation. LOL

[Edd]

The "tobacco" that the guy was trying to smuggle on board - I'm wondering what the purpose for it was.....?? If I'm the captain and I see some guy trying to sneak something on board that is potentially going to give him a "high" - I think I'm gonna want him off my ship..... I'd rather deny him boarding than see him try to use the Crown Viking lounge as a high dive into the sea.......

 

I admit, that is an extreme thought, but the captain has to think about extremes when it comes to passenger safety.

 

As far as a refund goes, RCI would never miss the $3000 if they refunded it. Assuming that the passenger is guilty, why should RCI give up the sale of a cabin when they were not at fault...??

[Ocean Boy]

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.

 

I have to agree with you there. And I think that most people would agree with that or they wouldn't be sailing with RCI over....and over... and over.

[FTLCruiseGal]

. . . the fact that the woman misled (for a lack of better word) folks when she posted about how she was being treated unfairly and didn't give the whole story about how they hid the tobacco, is it possible that she "misled" us as to how they acted at the port with security and/or police. I would love to see the video from the port in regard to this. I am sure that they were less than pleased that they could not board the ship, so I am sure that they may have (notice I say may have as I do not know as I was not there) raised their voices a bit and/or became a bit uncontrollable. Just an idea. Go ahead -- flame away at my theory.

[BeagleOne]

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.

 

 

Well, I guess it depends on whether the term "violated a regulation" is the most apt term here. The couple, or at least the husband, did something that caused the captain and the security personnel to consider them/him a security risk. That's enough, under the contract 8e., to deny them/him boarding. Perhaps something like "did not meet the terms of the ticket contract", in that the captain deemed them/him a security risk, would be more appropriate.

 

Suppose someone vomited the day before the cruise due solely to airsickness. That passenger can legitimately claim to be fit to travel under 12a. However, if the passenger ticks the "Yes I vomited within X hours of travel" box on the departure form, and the medical staff/captain don't believe the airsickness story, they can deny boarding based on 8e. and/or 8h. and/or the Refusal to Transport policy. In such a case, the passenger hasn't "violated any regulation", but they can still be denied passage.

 

As for the refund...as I pointed out, under 8g., the cruise line isn't obliged to refund them. I wonder what the eventual outcome of that will be.

 

I'd be interested to know how many people, if their spouse did something boneheaded like this and they were unaware of it until the spouse got caught, would go on the cruise without the spouse if the captain denied the "perpetrator" boarding but said the other half of the couple could go?

[Ocean Boy]

The "tobacco" that the guy was trying to smuggle on board - I'm wondering what the purpose for it was.....?? If I'm the captain and I see some guy trying to sneak something on board that is potentially going to give him a "high" - I think I'm gonna want him off my ship..... I'd rather deny him boarding than see him try to use the Crown Viking lounge as a high dive into the sea.......

 

 

How about the scenario where the dude smokes this unidentified substance, ends up with some reaction that lands him in the medical center, the physician then informs the captain that they need to alter the itinerary and get close enough to land to carry out a medevac.

 

I just thought I might throw that out for those who said this incident would have had no effect form a safety standpoint, or otherwise, on the other 3600 passengers.

[bigeagle12]

How about the scenario where the dude smokes this unidentified substance, ends up with some reaction that lands him in the medical center, the physician then informs the captain that they need to alter the itinerary and get close enough to land to carry out a medevac.

 

I just thought I might throw that out for those who said this incident would have had no effect form a safety standpoint, or otherwise, on the other 3600 passengers.

 

If it is going to add days to my cruise .. let him on :D

[SamFritz]

This thread has inspired me to write a haiku:

 

In circles we go

Whichever one is correct

Pass it to the left

 

BAM! Happy Thursday!

 

OR

 

Hukah herb on ship

not a very good idea

I'll see you at home.

 

 

OR

 

Natural herbs are good

unless stored in hiarspray can

then they wreck my cruise.

[The Moyers]

Ok, I've been following these 2 threads and have a I don't quite understand......does this false bottom hair spray can show up aa a hallow can on X-ray or what made them pick up on it? Seems like a really dumb thing to do if getting a faux can through security doesn't even succeed.

Debbie

[Aquahound]

The "tobacco" that the guy was trying to smuggle on board - I'm wondering what the purpose for it was.....?? If I'm the captain and I see some guy trying to sneak something on board that is potentially going to give him a "high" - I think I'm gonna want him off my ship..... I'd rather deny him boarding than see him try to use the Crown Viking lounge as a high dive into the sea.......

 

I admit, that is an extreme thought, but the captain has to think about extremes when it comes to passenger safety.

 

As far as a refund goes, RCI would never miss the $3000 if they refunded it. Assuming that the passenger is guilty, why should RCI give up the sale of a cabin when they were not at fault...??

 

You make a pretty good point here. Some people seem to be hung up on policy or law, but are overlooking discretion. Policy according to the contract allows for a fair amount of discretion.

 

Knowing what I know of the FOS Captain, this decision was not made lightly and not without a clear examination of the information provided to him.

 

I work with cruise ship captains regularly with regard to passengers gone stupid. I can assure you the decision to eject is not made lightly.

 

Another thing that has to be understood is the cruise lines have a Zero Tolerance policy toward illegal drugs. They take it seriously, in part, due to heavy government pressure to do so. The mere possibility you are trying to introduce illegal drugs, and you are gone. Hiding a green leafy substance in a fake can that clearly isn't tobacco would do it, and obviously has.

 

There is more to this story we as onlookers are not privy to (with the exception of a few who guessed wisely ;)).

[mickeysgal]

Regarding whether the cabin was resold or occupied in some way after they got booted off, you forget this post where she claimed someone else had her cabin too:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?p=33514479#post33514479

 

Of course, anything she says is highly suspect since she omitted details, claimed there is a $50 reward/bonus for finding things to be confiscated in people's luggage, etc. etc.

 

And then at the very end of the closed thread, the OP said that husband got sick on crab legs during the short time they were on the ship. No mention of this up until the very end of that monster thread.

[broberts]

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
   

 

Your point 4 implies inconclusive police tests. Fact is the police tests were negative for THC. That is not "could not prove" but "proved an absence of any illegal substance".

 

Also, there is some question in my mind as to accuracy of the report that any test performed by RCI came out positive. First, it's not clear that in fact RCI performed any scientific test. Second, it's not clear that said test did in fact produce a positive result.

[BeagleOne]

Your point 4 implies inconclusive police tests. Fact is the police tests were negative for THC. That is not "could not prove" but "proved an absence of any illegal substance".

 

 

 

Actually, "negative for THC" means "negative for THC", NOT "proved an absence of any illegal substance".

[BND]

You make a pretty good point here. Some people seem to be hung up on policy or law, but are overlooking discretion. Policy according to the contract allows for a fair amount of discretion.

 

Knowing what I know of the FOS Captain, this decision was not made lightly and not without a clear examination of the information provided to him.

 

I work with cruise ship captains regularly with regard to passengers gone stupid. I can assure you the decision to eject is not made lightly.

 

Another thing that has to be understood is the cruise lines have a Zero Tolerance policy toward illegal drugs. They take it seriously, in part, due to heavy government pressure to do so. The mere possibility you are trying to introduce illegal drugs, and you are gone. Hiding a green leafy substance in a fake can that clearly isn't tobacco would do it, and obviously has.

 

There is more to this story we as onlookers are not privy to (with the exception of a few who guessed wisely ;)).

 

:D

 

Need a "like" button.

[BND]

And then at the very end of the closed thread, the OP said that husband got sick on crab legs during the short time they were on the ship. No mention of this up until the very end of that monster thread.

 

I don't think I've ever seen crab legs in the Windjammer. But, of course, being allergic to shrimp makes me avoid all crustaceans.

[bigeagle12]

Your point 4 implies inconclusive police tests. Fact is the police tests were negative for THC. That is not "could not prove" but "proved an absence of any illegal substance".

 

Also, there is some question in my mind as to accuracy of the report that any test performed by RCI came out positive. First, it's not clear that in fact RCI performed any scientific test. Second, it's not clear that said test did in fact produce a positive result.

 

You obviously have not read this entire thread. Our legal experts have already confirmed that the police only tested for THC (marijuana) and no other illegal subtances. There are dozens of other illegal substances that could not be tested for at the port. The police chose not to pursue it an further.

[Hunwolf]

You "guys" suck at poetry...with honors...

[aurelius180]

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.

 

 

I probably wasn't clear in my original post as I was trying to type on my phone while heading home...

 

I was more trying to point out that some on here think RCI has no problem just denying boarding to anyone they please (ie the OP who claimed they were booted for only having tobacco). Or just treat their customers badly in general without care (run by circus clowns). That theory doesn't jive with the formula they've devised.

[bigeagle12]

Your point 4 implies inconclusive police tests. Fact is the police tests were negative for THC. That is not "could not prove" but "proved an absence of any illegal substance".

 

Also, there is some question in my mind as to accuracy of the report that any test performed by RCI came out positive. First, it's not clear that in fact RCI performed any scientific test. Second, it's not clear that said test did in fact produce a positive result.

 

Also previously stated by legal experts that most cruiselines to have testing equipment that is more sophisticated than the basic test kit used by PC police.

[hubofhockey]

How about the scenario where the dude smokes this unidentified substance, ends up with some reaction that lands him in the medical center, the physician then informs the captain that they need to alter the itinerary and get close enough to land to carry out a medevac.

 

I just thought I might throw that out for those who said this incident would have had no effect form a safety standpoint, or otherwise, on the other 3600 passengers.

 

You have a pretty active imagination.

 

Under your train of thought, they should ban elderly people from the ship as well because there is far more likelihood of them having a heart attack or stroke during their cruise - maybe even greater than the passenger in this case who is smoking something that is legal.

 

No matter all of the "what ifs" or people trying to get into the minds of this passenger, nobody has found anything saying the passenger was in breach of his cruise contract. One party did breach the contract. That was RCI. Even if they did it for safety reasons, the passenger should be made whole. I like the passenger's fact pattern a whole lot more than I like the cruise line's in this case. If it ever went to trial though, he'd have to make sure that RCI fanboys weren't on the jury. :D

[EVALUATOR]

I'd be interested to know how many people, if their spouse did something boneheaded like this and they were unaware of it until the spouse got caught, would go on the cruise without the spouse if the captain denied the "perpetrator" boarding but said the other half of the couple could go?

 

I know Mrs E would go. Heck, she left me at home once to go with her sister and I got to babysit the cats.

 

If I was with her and screwed up the cruise it would be my ashes in the screw cap can.

 

We are home!!!:D:D:D

[ryano]

Also previously stated by legal experts that most cruiselines to have testing equipment that is more sophisticated than the basic test kit used by PC police.

 

I appreciate the knowledge that some bring to this forum and understand that some are in professions that deal with this type of thing And some are in the know but when I see "legal expert" I think lawyer or judge. Just WHO ARE the legal experts here?

[tanelicus]

I probably wasn't clear in my original post as I was trying to type on my phone while heading home...

 

I was more trying to point out that some on here think RCI has no problem just denying boarding to anyone they please (ie the OP who claimed they were booted for only having tobacco). Or just treat their customers badly in general without care (run by circus clowns). That theory doesn't jive with the formula they've devised.

 

However this is a industry with humans at the helm, and sometimes that forumla doesn't always lead to the intended effect, the people get a little carried away following it, or are not following it at all.

 

In short, errors do happen, and it is the fault of the company. It's possible in many instances that RCI can be at fault, but 8 out of 10 times I am sure that they are doing the correct thing.

[bigeagle12]

I appreciate the knowledge that some bring to this forum and understand that some are in professions that deal with this type of thing And some are in the know but when I see "legal expert" I think lawyer or judge. Just WHO ARE the legal experts here?

 

Sorry .. meant "law enforcement" experts .. althought several legal experts have contributed as well.

[tanelicus]

I appreciate the knowledge that some bring to this forum and understand that some are in professions that deal with this type of thing And some are in the know but when I see "legal expert" I think lawyer or judge. Just WHO ARE the legal experts here?

 

I would not say I am an expert. I do have a license in two states that allows me to make noise in a court room. LOL

 

Trust me, nobody's a "legal expert", they just ignore or skewer other peoples opinions, and inject or spin their own, over and over. HAHA.