The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[BeagleOne]

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

 

Yay for being home!!!

 

I believe "got to babysit the cats" should be rephrased as "was exceptionally privileged to have the opportunity to serve Their Royal Felinenesses". :)

 

As for the legal experts...there was that list of Judge Judy quotations!

[reallyitsmema]

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?

One poster identified himself last night as a lawyer. I know there is one poster on here that only appears on threads like this and has been asked many times if he is a lawyer and he ignores those posts.:rolleyes: I am pretty sure that Dawg, the comic of the day, works in a law firm but I don't think she is a lawyer. A couple of posters on the original thread IDed themselves as law enforcement, either retired , airport or something else. Aquahound has told us all but his bloodtype in all the questioning some have put him through.;) Not sure of any other "legal" types.

 

Plus we have a smattering of TAs, a doctor or two, a self proclaimed pot stirrer, a carni or two, and a partridge and a pear tree.:D

[jonbgd]

One poster identified himself last night as a lawyer.

With a Jack Daniels degree:D

[reallyitsmema]

With a Jack Daniels degree:D

Exactly!:eek::p

[ryano]

one poster identified himself last night as a lawyer. I know there is one poster on here that only appears on threads like this and has been asked many times if he is a lawyer and he ignores those posts.:rolleyes: I am pretty sure that dawg, the comic of the day, works in a law firm but i don't think she is a lawyer. A couple of posters on the original thread ided themselves as law enforcement, either retired , airport or something else. Aquahound has told us all but his bloodtype in all the questioning some have put him through.;) not sure of any other "legal" types.

 

Plus we have a smattering of tas, a doctor or two, a self proclaimed pot stirrer, a carni or two, and a partridge and a pear tree.:d

 

lol!!!!!

[sleepless]

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.

 

THC is not the only illegal chemical that could have laced the "tobacco". It was the one they tested for.

[BeagleOne]

Guilty! :)

 

Actually haven't touched Jack Daniels since a dorm party in college...that whopatooli or electric soup or whatever it was in that garbage bin full of booze and fruit juice, plus the several shots of Jack after that...well...never again!

[ryano]

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.

 

LOL again!!!!! :D

[bigeagle12]

THC is not the only illegal chemical that could have laced the "tobacco". It was the one they tested for.

 

Pretty sad that this is 2012 and their test kits are only testing for a substance from the '60's and '70's.

[temple1]

Guilty! :)

 

Actually haven't touched Jack Daniels since a dorm party in college...that whopatooli or electric soup or whatever it was in that garbage bin full of booze and fruit juice, plus the several shots of Jack after that...well...never again!

 

Ohh, I know what you mean, I developed an allergy to tequila after one of those parties in college. Funny, no one ever claims a problem with Everclear after one of those.

[reney313]

Well, the allowable substance would have been confiscated. THAT is the problem.

 

RCI should provide a 100% refund. While they may have the right to refuse boarding to those they SUSPECT might be trouble, that might give them them the right to BREAK their end of the cruise contract. However, RCI should not be allowed to enrich themselves from a contract that they have broken. While it may have been too late for RCI to resell that cabin, that is the cost(and a small one at that) for the safety of other passengers. I am not impressed with RCI's handling of this matter.

 

I fully agree with this statement! They had every right to deny boarding for suspicious behavior, but since they did not prove any breach of contract by the cruisers then they should refund.

[jonbgd]

Guilty! :)

 

Actually haven't touched Jack Daniels since a dorm party in college...that whopatooli or electric soup or whatever it was in that garbage bin full of booze and fruit juice, plus the several shots of Jack after that...well...never again!

We use to make something like that in the Navy called Spodie:eek:

[EVALUATOR]

Pretty sad that this is 2012 and their test kits are only testing for a substance from the '60's and '70's.

 

I remember in 1984 my boss told be I had to take a drug test the next morning. He told me I could go home early that day and study for it if I wanted to. Even offered to pay for the 1/2 day of work I'd miss.

 

I almost lost part of the sample laughing.:D

[richstowe]

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.

Perfect! If they want a large settlement -tough. Your own stupidity led to this.

(How can there be 2 hubs of hockey?)

[Ratt]

I wasn't going to comment but if everyone else is going to pad their posting totals I guess I will do that myself. :cool:

 

While I hate to think that some random person(s) would have their vacation ruin by some over reacting security personnel, my take is that this does not happen that often and when it does the changes are that there is a good reason it took the course it did. If I'm in a position of authority when a situation like this comes up (and yes I know I don't know all the facts) I would error on the side of caution and possibly ruin the vacation of 2 passengers while protecting the vacation's and life's of thousands of passengers and crew members.

 

As has been said many times, the cruise lines have the right to refuse service to anyone they want to as long as they don't discriminate against them based on very specific laws. And the cruise contract actually makes this even easier because there is a written contract that a passenger must agree to when they purchase a cruise. However, the cruise contract does not keep a passenger from suing the cruise line but it does make it much harder.

 

I'm glad that the cruise lines take the safety of their passengers seriously, and while it sucks that this couple had their vacation ruin, it does appear (from some hints dropped in this thread) that they did do something wrong even if they weren't arrested or fined.

 

It would be easiest to just refund the cruise but I really don't think Royal has any obligation to do so.

[3dog]

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.

 

Section 3, Property Limitations and Liabilities

a) Baggage Limits and Prohibitied items:

 

Carrier reserves the right to refuse to permit any Passenger to take on board the Vessel or on any mode of Transport any item Carrier deems inappropriate.

 

Section 8 PASSENGER’S OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH AGREEMENT, APPLICABLE LAWS, AND RULES OF CARRIER; QUARANTINE; INDEMNIFICATION

d):

...disembark or refuse to embark the Passenger and/or any Passenger responsible for any minor Passenger, or restrain any Passenger at any time, without liability, at the risk and expense of the Passenger, when in the sole opinion of Carrier or Captain the Passenger’s conduct or presence, or that of any minor for whom the Passenger is responsible, is believed to present a possible danger, security risk or be detrimental to himself or the health, welfare, comfort or enjoyment of others, ...

[Big_G]

I'm not sure there is any venue that you would buy a ticket for where after you were allowed entry you are escorted off because of your own behavior and then get a refund. Anybody?

[Ratt]

I'm not sure there is any venue that you would buy a ticket for where after you were allowed entry you are escorted off because of your own behavior and then get a refund. Anybody?

 

While you are not trying to be funny I have to say that what I thought of after reading your post did make me laugh.

 

I've spent a decent amount of time in casinos over the years and while I've seen a number of people escorted out for their bad behavior, I doubt any of them were refunded their losses no matter how hard they tired. :D

[RMH]

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
   

 

I think this is probably as good of a summary of the 'facts' (OK, agreed up chain of events) that we are going to see. I do have two things that I got from the CC article. First, RCI security, not the police, gave the items back after the second test that turned up negative. Not a big deal, but RCI did seem to know that there was nothing illegial in the baggie after their initial test was positive for a controlled substance.

 

Second "Port officials agree that the contraband was tobacco and not an illegal substance". So, despite all the experts on this board claiming otherwise, the port authorities deemed the substance to be tobacco.

 

I think RCI is within their rights to deny boarding and not refund the fare. However, I think they SHOULD do the right thing (yes, the right thing) and refund the money they collected.

 

It has been an interesting topic and I for one have learned a lot.

[RMH]

I'm not sure there is any venue that you would buy a ticket for where after you were allowed entry you are escorted off because of your own behavior and then get a refund. Anybody?

 

I have seen this happen in movie theatres. Under age kids at a rated R movies are kicked out and given their money back. They don't get their dignity back, however !

[kasane]

The cruise line did them a favor. If he was caught off ship in one of the ports with the substance in his dive bag, he would still be there. The ship would have sailed without him and more than likely her. No intervention on the part of the Captain would have prevented this. If caught on board later, he gets a security guard to sit outside the door of his cabin - under house arrest for the rest of the cruise. (or he has a heart attack from the substance, dies or has to be emergency evacuated from the ship - not a cheap scenario either).

 

It is convenient that the ship and the American police have test kits to check for controlled substances, but would Costa Maya, Grand Cayman, Belize, have these handy dandy kits? If it had happened off ship, even on the docks in those countries, the captain would have no say in the matter.

 

Also, everyone talks about how great it is to smuggle liquor on board and if that's all they catch from reboarding passengers in the ports - so no big deal. What about the people that aren't bringing that back at, but something else. A lot of people get tossed off/arrested on cruise ships for doing something stupid and are sitting in a foreign jail, paying a lot of money to prove something that the American Police were able to do in a matter of minutes.

 

He is lucky he got caught before the ship left. He might not see it that way and neither do a lot of people on this thread. But given time, I think his lawyer might be able to get him to understand how much better it was to get tossed now, rather than spending time in a foreign jail.

 

Does the cruise line owe him a refund - who knows - let the lawyers go through all the paperwork and decide. Frankly I don't care either way.

 

I am really concerned that people think this is no big deal. Change out those Port Canaveral police uniforms with Mexican police or Nassau police. And run the entire scenario again - without that handy little test kit.

[sailinglisa]

The cruise line did them a favor. If he was caught off ship in one of the ports with the substance in his dive bag, he would still be there. The ship would have sailed without him and more than likely her. No intervention on the part of the Captain would have prevented this. If caught on board later, he gets a security guard to sit outside the door of his cabin - under house arrest for the rest of the cruise. (or he has a heart attack from the substance, dies or has to be emergency evacuated from the ship - not a cheap scenario either).

 

It is convenient that the ship and the American police have test kits to check for controlled substances, but would Costa Maya, Grand Cayman, Belize, have these handy dandy kits? If it had happened off ship, even on the docks in those countries, the captain would have no say in the matter.

 

Also, everyone talks about how great it is to smuggle liquor on board and if that's all they catch from reboarding passengers in the ports - so no big deal. What about the people that aren't bringing that back at, but something else. A lot of people get tossed off/arrested on cruise ships for doing something stupid and are sitting in a foreign jail, paying a lot of money to prove something that the American Police were able to do in a matter of minutes.

 

He is lucky he got caught before the ship left. He might not see it that way and neither do a lot of people on this thread. But given time, I think his lawyer might be able to get him to understand how much better it was to get tossed now, rather than spending time in a foreign jail.

 

Does the cruise line owe him a refund - who knows - let the lawyers go through all the paperwork and decide. Frankly I don't care either way.

 

I am really concerned that people think this is no big deal. Change out those Port Canaveral police uniforms with Mexican police or Nassau police. And run the entire scenario again - without that handy little test kit.

 

 

I wish there was a LIKE button on CC.....you said it all. Why attempt to hide and conceal a LEGAL substance, unless it was a test run?

[TorDyrdal]

http://c3270052.r52.cf0.rackcdn.com/freedom-incident-report.jpg

[broberts]

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.

 

Sorry, but I always take anything I read on the Internet with a grain or two of salt. I have no idea as to the qualifications of those who made the claims nor do I have any idea as to their bias.

 

I know not who has what equipment. I also don't know what level of training the operators may or may not have had.

 

I do trust the police to be competent and execute their duty to the best of their ability. I do not trust a cruise line to perform policing duties in a manner that is anything but self-serving.

[broberts]

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.

 

Legal experts? I read posts by those claiming to be in law enforcement. I would not take their posts as those of "experts". I don't think any of them suggested they were experts.

 

As to the reports by someone with a friend in . . . hearsay is simply not reliable.