The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[CruisingMachine]

Per OP's reply in her original thread, the pipe was brand new and unused:

 

Originally Posted by BecciBoo:

Will you quick please just tell us what he was planning on smoking it with so we won't have to read that one again!!!!!!!!!!

 

Hager350z's response:

What does it matter it was tobacco that u smoke with a pipe or rolling papers. He had a brand new unused old man Popeye type of pipe that was tested and showed up as unused and given right back from the police officers hands to my husband. BRAND NEW AND UNUSED! The point is we had nothing illegal or listed as prohibited and we have a real police officer that verified all of this and a report to back it up....someone dropped the ball and failed miserably at their job thus denying us our vacation. Put yourself in my shoes and i don't think you would be a happy camper either. My god they did a background check to boot and it was perfect what more proof does a cruise line need to allow you to cruise....DNA? As I said before I feel like we were totally ripped off! A professional company should be more organized than this. You don't gain and retain loyal customers with this type of behavior!

__________________

 

She lied about the type of pipe and she lied about how the "tobacco" was hidden. Who knows what else she's lying about?

[Cruising89143]

I thought customs did check the luggage and that they brought the drug dogs in to sniff the bags.

 

Nope, not always. We have carried our luggage off the eight straight cruises and have yet to see a dog in sight. Not saying that they don't walk them through the luggage area for the ones that do not carry their luggage off the ship or have them around but we did not see them. This was out of Port Canaveral, FLL and Tampa.

[aurelius180]

According to the OP and the article the OP was denied boarding because they were high risk. They were not denied boarding because they were transporting tobacco (a legal substance).

 

They were deemed high risk because they were transporting a green herb substance resembling marijuana in false-bottom hairspray can. This description was given by the OP's husband in the article.

 

The OP only described it as tobacco purchased from a store. Everyone assumed, through intentionally misleading statements by the OP, that it was regular brown tobacco transported in a plastic zip-loc bag only.

 

The OP went into detail about the zip-loc bag being placed in a diving bag but failed to mention the hairspray can.

 

The OP's husband admitted the substance looked suspicious and judging by their website, Halo Hooka products are sold in tin cans not plastic bags.

 

Rather than transporting a very legal substance in it's original packaging her husbands decides to conceal a marijuana-like substance along with a pipe in a false-bottom hairspray can further concealed in a dive bag. That seems high-risk. As already stated before it appears someone was testing security to see if they could get away with it. A "dry run."

 

I would think if this person tried this while boarding a plane they would have an even more difficult time with TSA.

 

While in the original thread I was starting to buy what the OP was selling...there appears far more to this story we don't know and at the very least they are "high risk." :cool:

[Aviator of the Seas]

I have been 100% supportive of the couple.

 

Hey, you want to bring tobacco on a cruise in a dive bag or any other container, that is your right to do so.

 

But, a man taking hairspray on a cruise?:eek: That is a violation. Real men do not use hairspray.

 

That's probably what the security person thought - "who the hell uses hairspray anymore?...let me take a closer look at this!"

[Gayle V]

This at least explains her earlier comment about her husband feeling responsible for ruining their vacation. I believed her story before too, but wondered about that part. Now, still think they might win a lawsuit over this, because, while it was undeniably dumb, it wasn't illegal. I still hope they get a refund.

[Langley Cruisers]

I thought customs did check the luggage and that they brought the drug dogs in to sniff the bags.

 

Yes, at disembarkation but not usually at regular port stops. I think that was the point.

 

Nope, not always. We have carried our luggage off the eight straight cruises and have yet to see a dog in sight.

 

You didn't see them because they already did their job before any passengers disembarked.

[bajathree]

I thought customs did check the luggage and that they brought the drug dogs in to sniff the bags.

 

I am talking about walking off the ship at a port...no one looks at what you are carrying off the ship say getting off in Nassau...or St Thomas...or any of the islands. If the can passed thru security no problem getting on the ship in the first place...then pretty good idea that it would get back on the ship passing under the radar once again returning from a port. Especially like I said if you had it in a bag with a real can that you had a receipt for from buying on the island (and throwing the real can away)...actually it's a pretty clever scheme. Not saying that "was" the OP's intent.

[sredish]

According to the OP and the article the OP was denied boarding because they were high risk. They were not denied boarding because they were transporting tobacco (a legal substance).

 

They were deemed high risk because they were transporting a green herb substance resembling marijuana in false-bottom hairspray can. This description was given by the OP's husband in the article.

 

The OP only described it as tobacco purchased from a store. Everyone assumed, through intentionally misleading statements by the OP, that it was regular brown tobacco transported in a plastic zip-loc bag only.

 

The OP went into detail about the zip-loc bag being placed in a diving bag but failed to mention the hairspray can.

 

The OP's husband admitted the substance looked suspicious and judging by their website, Halo Hooka products are sold in tin cans not plastic bags.

 

Rather than transporting a very legal substance in it's original packaging her husbands decides to conceal a marijuana-like substance along with a pipe in a false-bottom hairspray can further concealed in a dive bag. That seems high-risk. As already stated before it appears someone was testing security to see if they could get away with it. A "dry run."

 

I would think if this person tried this while boarding a plane they would have an even more difficult time with TSA.

 

While in the original thread I was starting to buy what the OP was selling...there appears far more to this story we don't know and at the very least they are "high risk." :cool:

 

Word. To everything you said.

[beer1234]

I stated on the other thread that something STINKS and I was right. Not likely you'll hear from her again. Everyone who smuggles ( alcohol, irons, and such) better think twice before you put it in the bag. You just might be saying bon voy a gee from the dock.

[CruisingMachine]

This at least explains her earlier comment about her husband feeling responsible for ruining their vacation. I believed her story before too, but wondered about that part. Now, still think they might win a lawsuit over this, because, while it was undeniably dumb, it wasn't illegal. I still hope they get a refund.

 

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME...it does NOT have to be "illegal". DUMB is plenty good enough.

[BND]

I am talking about walking off the ship at a port...no one looks at what you are carrying off the ship say getting off in Nassau...or St Thomas...or any of the islands. If the can passed thru security no problem getting on the ship in the first place...then pretty good idea that it would get back on the ship passing under the radar once again returning from a port. Especially like I said if you had it in a bag with a real can that you had a receipt for from buying on the island (and throwing the real can away)...actually it's a pretty clever scheme. Not saying that "was" the OP's intent.

 

It doesn't matter if it was the OP's intent. What matters is the intent that is indicated by an action like this. Port security, RCI and the police have to go by their experiences and intent that they have witnessed over the years. Law enforcement have to be able to use their training and previous experience. It's the concealment and how it was concealed that are red flags that to law enforcement indicate future possible behavior based on their experience.

 

The OP was very misleading and was obviously trying to win public support without telling the entire story. I'm sure, hoping to force RCI into a refund or more.

 

As someone on the other thread posted, this could have easily (very easily) been seen as a test of the system. It's not personal and all the posters who were so horribly offended, thinking the OP was being attacked, need to take a step back and realize that. I think the suspicions were reasonable given what we now know.

 

And for everyone pushing lawsuit, give it up, there is no case.

[CruisingMachine]

According to the OP and the article the OP was denied boarding because they were high risk. They were not denied boarding because they were transporting tobacco (a legal substance).

 

They were deemed high risk because they were transporting a green herb substance resembling marijuana in false-bottom hairspray can. This description was given by the OP's husband in the article.

 

The OP only described it as tobacco purchased from a store. Everyone assumed, through intentionally misleading statements by the OP, that it was regular brown tobacco transported in a plastic zip-loc bag only.

 

The OP went into detail about the zip-loc bag being placed in a diving bag but failed to mention the hairspray can.

 

The OP's husband admitted the substance looked suspicious and judging by their website, Halo Hooka products are sold in tin cans not plastic bags.

 

Rather than transporting a very legal substance in it's original packaging her husbands decides to conceal a marijuana-like substance along with a pipe in a false-bottom hairspray can further concealed in a dive bag. That seems high-risk. As already stated before it appears someone was testing security to see if they could get away with it. A "dry run."

 

I would think if this person tried this while boarding a plane they would have an even more difficult time with TSA.

 

While in the original thread I was starting to buy what the OP was selling...there appears far more to this story we don't know and at the very least they are "high risk." :cool:

 

End of story.

[kenevenpar]

Poor form,are you aware of this posters age,country of origin or mental status.You must as you have passed judgement on them.I hope people will be kinder to you when you make an error somewhere down the line.This post in not about the topic at hand only the quoted posters lack of common decency.If i misunderstood the post i appologize but i think i did not

 

You did. This poster called another poster trailer trash (TT). I do not care about punctuation, sentence structure etc. on these boards, but I find it disgusting for someone to judge someone as TT.

[time4u2go]

Lost in translation perhaps? This is just a guess on my part and not to be taken as fact. We all know how the telephone game works and this case would have involved people for which English is their second language. What started out as testing a suspected illegal substance with negative results could very easily have changed to the substance testing as an illegal substance when it reached the Captain's ear, especially when explaining it was found in a hidden compartment.

 

Are you thinking "lost in translation" on the way up to the captain, or "lost in translation" after the fact, on the way to the spokesperson?

 

If it's the former, then it would seem pretty significant that the captain might have been provided incorrect information.

[Cruising89143]

According to the OP and the article the OP was denied boarding because they were high risk. They were not denied boarding because they were transporting tobacco (a legal substance).

 

They were deemed high risk because they were transporting a green herb substance resembling marijuana in false-bottom hairspray can. This description was given by the OP's husband in the article.

 

The OP only described it as tobacco purchased from a store. Everyone assumed, through intentionally misleading statements by the OP, that it was regular brown tobacco transported in a plastic zip-loc bag only.

 

The OP went into detail about the zip-loc bag being placed in a diving bag but failed to mention the hairspray can.

 

The OP's husband admitted the substance looked suspicious and judging by their website, Halo Hooka products are sold in tin cans not plastic bags.

 

Rather than transporting a very legal substance in it's original packaging her husbands decides to conceal a marijuana-like substance along with a pipe in a false-bottom hairspray can further concealed in a dive bag. That seems high-risk. As already stated before it appears someone was testing security to see if they could get away with it. A "dry run."

 

I would think if this person tried this while boarding a plane they would have an even more difficult time with TSA.

 

While in the original thread I was starting to buy what the OP was selling...there appears far more to this story we don't know and at the very least they are "high risk." :cool:

 

 

This just about sums it up pretty darn good.

[Cruising89143]

 

You didn't see them because they already did their job before any passengers disembarked.

 

Uh, not when I'm carrying my own luggage off the ship that has been in my cabin all night.

[Aquahound]

Are you thinking "lost in translation" on the way up to the captain, or "lost in translation" after the fact, on the way to the spokesperson?

 

If it's the former, then it would seem pretty significant that the captain might have been provided incorrect information.

 

I'm thinking on the way up to the Captain. However, knowing Cynthia's history, who knows?

[Gayle V]

One thing seems odd about that dummy run idea: If I were going to try to sneak anything past security in a fake can of hair spray, I would have put it in the utility case next to my shampoo, the shave cream, conditioner etc. Putting it in the dive bag was illogical, for someone attempting to conceal the contents. This might incline a judge to go along with the idea that it was just a dumb move, and maybe not a dummy run.

[time4u2go]

I'm thinking on the way up to the Captain. However, knowing Cynthia's history, who knows?

 

If that's the case, then the captain was told that the substance was illegal. That would certainly change things.

 

But you are correct about Cynthia.

[aurelius180]

One thing seems odd about that dummy run idea: If I were going to try to sneak anything past security in a fake can of hair spray, I would have put it in the utility case next to my shampoo, the shave cream, conditioner etc. Putting it in the dive bag was illogical, for someone attempting to conceal the contents. This might incline a judge to go along with the idea that it was just a dumb move, and maybe not a dummy run.

 

 

The dive bag is going to follow them off the ship while in port. Seems logical since some people dive while in port. It would then return on-board with an illegal substance in it. The hairspray can further conceals the illegal substance. A better can could have been used but maybe the excuse is his wife wanted it while in port to fix her hair after being in the water?

[reallyitsmema]

Uh, not when I'm carrying my own luggage off the ship that has been in my cabin all night.

We have sailed out of Port Canaveral three times and have seen dogs there on two out of three cruises. Both times were before the cruise, not after, but we definitely saw them. They could have been around after too but we are usually trying to get to the airport for a way too early flight and wouldn't notice unless one bit us.;):p

[d4nigirl]

The Popeye I used to watch on Sat. morning on KTLA would not be caught dead with a pipe lke this, he was no Fancy-Man!!!:D

 

Phoenix, I swear I can't ever read a post where you post and not laugh. The original thread for this issue had me rolling with your comments!

[Capt_BJ]

When I step on the Oasis on June 23, what country will I be in?

 

Please advise.

 

that's what that flag hanging at the stern when docked, and the homeport under the name at the transom means

 

it is not just decoration, it has VERY VERY significant meaning

 

for example if an 'authority' questions a ship on the high seas asking their nationality and the ship provides an answer different from the "hailing port" that ship is technically stateless and can be boarded by any 'authority' to determine if it is a pirate. We (US) got on board a lot of drug vessels in the 70s and 80s under this technicality.

 

When your ship is in a US port there are overlapping jurisdictions - and the implications are INTERNATIONAL - when you are on the ship. When you are in the terminal US law applies, but the cruise line still has the 100% right to enforce their policy and tradition says the Master's word is THE word. In most cases the most signifant retaliation the US could apply legally would be refusing the ship permission to enter another US port.

[Ocean Boy]

Oh, OK. I defended the OP on the other thread, but things much clearer now. Typical 'dummy run', Captain worried they are going shopping for something in the islands, which they will smuggle back onboard the same way, therefore high risk.

 

They are getting nothing, with or without a lawyer, I think. Unless the Captain was actually misinformed that the test was positive (but even then I think RCI will ignore the refund request).

 

Agree with you, Eagle. Good call.

 

Wonder if OP will comment in this new thread?

 

I agree. I said on the other thread that I would not pack anything in a way that would look suspicious. And that was back when the stuff was supposedly packed in a dive bag to keep the moisture out. Now it is a can with a false bottom. Well, I think the bottom just fell out of the story.

 

However, I don't know why RCI said that the authorities took the stuff away and destroyed it. The last thing police are going to do is destroy evidence.

[beer1234]

To the OP who started this whole thing----- WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL, we're WAITING.