The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[graphicguy]

How about they do find snacks .. but not in original container .. and can't prove where they came from .. then she admits to hiding them .. but says it is really fake popcorn .. only looks like popcorn .. and we have no test to test specifically for popcorn or not popcorn .. but we can prove it does not contain THC :D

 

But, the whole crux of this (using your analogy), they didn't find the snacks they were looking for. They found what they thought were snacks, but upon further investigation and testing, they weren't the banned snacks at all. Matter of fact, they don't know what exactly it is they found and they had no other recourse. However, they decided to take the OP's money and in return, give them nothing of value. That's theft, regardless of what the ticket says.

 

OP...take this to small claims court where you live. You'll win the case and get your fare back from RCCL. RCCL isn't going to to through the expense of hiring or sending a lawyer to wherever it is your from to fight you. Plus, they don't need any more negative publicity than they've already received from this thread.

 

Use it as a lesson learned and get on with your newly found knowledge about how to pack for a vacation.

[bigeagle12]

But, the whole crux of this (using your analogy), they didn't find the snacks. They found what they thought were snacks, but upon testing, they weren't the banned snacks at all.

 

OP...take this to small claims court where you live. You'll win the case and get your fare back from RCCL. RCCL isn't going to to through the expense of hiring or sending a lawyer to wherever it is your from to fight you. Plus, they don't need any more negative publicity than they've already received from this thread.

 

Use it as a lesson learned and get on with your newly found knowledge about how to pack for a vacation.

 

You missed the point .. there is NO test to prove it was tobacco or not tobacco .. only that it did not contain THC .. dozens of other illiegal substances that were not tested for .. and RCI's test indicated a "contolled" substance

[jnojr]

You read very different medical literature than I do.

 

I would be VERY interested to know what "medical literature" shows marijuana as having a degree of risk anything close to that of tobacco, let alone any at all.

 

We know for a certain-sure fact that tobacco kills hundreds of thousands of people every year. How many does marijuana kill? As a direct cause... if you want to go off on the "Well, some guy got high and then did something dumb and died", then we cans start talking about the hundreds of thousands of alcohol-related deaths, too, and why booze is legal.

 

Bottom line - marijuana is illegal because of hysteria.

[mrsdoc3]

Because we're Americans and we were raised to believe that you only got arrested if you broke the law. It's something that we were encouraged to be proud of. "Other countries" could arrest you for nothing just to keep you quiet or to maintain control via intimidation. So, that's why we all look at it that way.

 

Now, I know you're going to say that the ship isn't part of the US, but you asked... I answered. :)

 

But they were NOT arrested!!!! They were denied boarding. There is no criminal case. Innocent until proven guilty applies only to criminal cases.

[mrsdoc3]

But you know, a few days later you would get the 15 YO back with a sympathy note.

 

Ransom of Red Chief.

[Heidils]

Why did Salem Mass just pop into my head? Oh yeah the Witch Hunts.

 

So if I'm detained by a PA questioning my Listerene bottle...lets say the seal is removed, and it is tested as whether alcohol in it, and found alcohol free, I should expect that other tests should be done to see if there isn't possibly anything else illegal in it?

 

"We didn't find what we were looking for so lets come up with a whole bunch of scenarios what will justify what we have already done."

 

Here's a shovel, keep digging....

[BeagleOne]

I really, really don't get the husband's claimed "thought" process. If the stuff he wanted to get on board really WAS Halo Hookah, and he really WAS concerned that it looked enough like pot that the cruise line might "bust" him, why in the HECK would he go out of his way to make it look even MORE suspicious? Why not bring an unopened tin, with the receipt, with him, and just pack it in the suitcase? The tins aren't THAT big.

 

Is he that stupid, or was he up to something else, or both? Guess we'll never know for sure.

 

We'll also probably never know who at Halo Hookah decided that "creamy leprechaun" would be a good name for one of their flavors...:)

[jonbgd]

I would be VERY interested to know what "medical literature" shows marijuana as having a degree of risk anything close to that of tobacco, let alone any at all.

 

We know for a certain-sure fact that tobacco kills hundreds of thousands of people every year. How many does marijuana kill? As a direct cause... if you want to go off on the "Well, some guy got high and then did something dumb and died", then we cans start talking about the hundreds of thousands of alcohol-related deaths, too, and why booze is legal.

 

Bottom line - marijuana is illegal because of hysteria.

While It may or may not increase the risk of lung cancer by 5-7x as has been believed for years.

It can increase the risk of a heart attack, COPD and other medical issues.You are still inhaling a hot foriegn substance into your lungs

While I think it does have a place as medicinal, especially with cancer pts, I think it is totally being misused and abused in California under that umbrella

 

This stuff the OP was trying to smuggle probably was worse than maryjane thou

[Karma5]

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.

 

Behavior is another issue which has not been addressed....................

[Heidils]

Behavior is another issue which has not been addressed....................

 

I've wondered about that too, but when questioned the wife said, they were "adults" and no bad behaviour was displayed like that.

 

Again we don't know.

[graphicguy]

You missed the point .. there is NO test to prove it was tobacco or not tobacco .. only that it did not contain THC .. dozens of other illiegal substances that were not tested for .. and RCI's test indicated a "contolled" substance

 

Where in all of this does it say that the only thing the police tested for was THC? And, what did RCCL security find that was allegedly an illegal substance? They told the police they found an illegal substance. What was it?

 

Police sent OPs on their merry way. So either they ascertained that RCCL's conclusions were questionable, or they totally disbelieved them.

 

Either way, RCCL looks badly in all of this.

[mjldvlks]

. . . and RCI's test indicated a "contolled" substance

Do we know that for sure? Have we resolved the conflict between the RCI statement and the PA statement? I decided to quit trying to keep up so I may easily have missed it.

[aurelius180]

I've wondered about that too, but when questioned the wife said, they were "adults" and no bad behaviour was displayed like that.

 

Again we don't know.

 

Giving him the benefit of the doubt he may have been completely calm and rationale during the interaction with security and police. He may also have told them what he told CC:

 

"It was Halo Hookah's "summer swing," said Robert during a phone conversation -- a (legal) flavored smoke product containing, according to the brand's Web site, tobacco leaf, honey, glycerin and other flavors. Because Hookah Herb could be mistaken for marijuana, Robert said he chose to conceal the bag. "Looking back, hiding it might not have been a good idea," he deadpanned.

 

 

This would be an admission of an attempt to pass a marijuana-like item through security screeners by way of concealment. Security and the Captain would not be stretching it too far to think he may attempt it again with the real thing.

[bigeagle12]

I've wondered about that too, but when questioned the wife said, they were "adults" and no bad behaviour was displayed like that.

 

Again we don't know.

 

And we know the wife does not LIE :rolleyes:

 

She has already proven herself to be the least trustworthy person involved in this whole process.

[utkikr21]

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.

 

If they had every right to deny boarding they have every right to deny refund. As many have posted their contract clearly states that if for any reason you are not on board the ship you will not get a refund.... Not sure whats hard to understand about this.

[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
   

 

Do we know that for sure? Have we resolved the conflict between the RCI statement and the PA statement? I decided to quit trying to keep up so I may easily have missed it.

 

See point 2 above .. just an assumption

[TBone2K]

I can't believe I'm getting into this now, but since this thread is longer than the original, why not?

 

So if I'm detained by a PA questioning my Listerene bottle...lets say the seal is removed, and it is tested as whether alcohol in it, and found alcohol free, I should expect that other tests should be done to see if there isn't possibly anything else illegal in it?

 

Perhaps if the above were true and the contents of your listerine bottle didn't look/smell (I was going to say taste, but I really doubt they would) like listerine they would ask you to explain.

 

But relating to the issue at hand, the original subject of this discussion would only be applicable to your listerine example if the above were true and you had hidden it in a false spray can.

[mjldvlks]

I come here to humbly apologize for injecting into the discussion the debate over what constitutes a "snack" an illegal "snack" a "snack" that while "legal" may be against the rules, and the pros and cons of available field tests for "snacks."

[mjldvlks]

I can't believe I'm getting into this now, but since this thread is longer than the original, why not?

 

 

 

Perhaps if the above were true and the contents of your listerine bottle didn't look/smell (I was going to say taste, but I really doubt they would) like listerine they would ask you to explain.

 

But relating to the issue at hand, the original subject of this discussion would only be applicable to your listerine example if the above were true and you had hidden it in a false spray can.

And if it is negative for alcohol, it wouldn't be Listerine, would it? Therefore some foeign substance was being concealed in the mouthwash bottle so off you go.

[Charles4515]

The only thing with that is, if you swap out Port Police with Mexican police or Nassau police like the OP says and run the entire scenario again, this whole fiasco is likely never even known here and is a non issue because Royal Caribbean played no part in it.

 

I mean really, who cares what happens to some total stranger on an island somewhere? I imagine that happens most every week and never makes "news" on this website.

 

This is ONLY an issue here because its involves Royal Caribbean.

 

The police in some foreign ports come on the ship and go thru the cabins with sniffer dogs. Antigua and Bermuda that I recall and likely others. They even have the cabin safes opened if the dog sniffs something. They make arrests on the ship. Another reason for Royal Caribbean not to allow any illegal drugs onto their ships.

[K1200S]

Someone please explain to me how another passenger bringing THC on board effect my safety? Seems to me he was denied boarding based on what he might do. That being the case then all of us that drive should probably get a speeding because all of us will exceed the posted limit at some point. I hope they get a refund.

[mjldvlks]

See point 2 above .. just an assumption

That's what I thought. If indeed RCI did a separate test that was positive for some contraband [not going to get into the whole "illegal" vs. "controlled substance" debate] I have no sympathy. But if the CC article quotes the PA lady correctly and she is right that "the" test was negative, then despite the suspicions and the posible permutations of the events, RCI cannot establish a violation of the guest conduct policy [which is the reason the RCI spokesperson said they were booted] and they should get a refund -- just a refund.

[Heidils]

And we know the wife does not LIE :rolleyes:

 

She has already proven herself to be the least trustworthy person involved in this whole process.

 

Well fair is fair...I don't buy into the "experts" here or the packs they seem to travel with and I don't know her, so I can't attest to what she has proven or not proven. It's simply a debate (to me) as to whats right and wrong with this situation and what we as fellow cruisers might expect.

 

This debate has helped me to see what could happen if we 1. Actually do break the rules. or 2. What injustice can occur only on speculation or what one MIGHT do in the future.

[bigeagle12]

Well fair is fair...I don't buy into the "experts" here or the packs they seem to travel

 

Regardless of whether you accept it or not .. the FACT is there are several "experts" that have contributed to this thread .. and have previously been proven to be "experts" in their fields .. you may choose to ignore their credentials and statements if you wish :rolleyes:

[Heidils]

I can't believe I'm getting into this now, but since this thread is longer than the original, why not?

 

 

 

Perhaps if the above were true and the contents of your listerine bottle didn't look/smell (I was going to say taste, but I really doubt they would) like listerine they would ask you to explain.

 

But relating to the issue at hand, the original subject of this discussion would only be applicable to your listerine example if the above were true and you had hidden it in a false spray can.

 

Granted, that was a bonehead thing to do, (hairspray can) but not illegal. If my Listerene was in fact just that, I should be able to pack it how I wish. I see your point with alcohol since Listerne has alcohol in it. At least it used to. My point was that (if Listerene did not contain a bit of alcohol) what lenghts does one go to find something when it isn't there.

 

We still don't know...