Weed Problem on Carnival Ships

[Dthomas1]

5 hours ago, FSHLOT said:

Sorry, That was never proven. But people believe what they want. The courts say different.

The ship was burnt far too much if it was as they say caused by a flicked cigarette.

It was just an excuse that the cruise line used to hide that it was a fault caused within

the ship it's self.

[Dthomas1]

On 9/21/2022 at 5:01 PM, FSHLOT said:

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. 

 

Your saying pot smokers (who sneak tokes) dont usually cruise with high prices? Thats way  off-base. 

 Many of the richest smoke weed and can afford the highest cruises. 

[chengkp75]

10 minutes ago, Dthomas1 said:

The ship was burnt far too much if it was as they say caused by a flicked cigarette.

It was just an excuse that the cruise line used to hide that it was a fault caused within

the ship it's self.

Sorry, can't support this conspiracy.  The extent of the fire was caused by several design and material failures, but it did start on the balcony, but how is another question.  Flicked cigarettes have caused major structural fires and wildfires over many years.

[Dthomas1]

9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Sorry, can't support this conspiracy.  The extent of the fire was caused by several design and material failures, but it did start on the balcony, but how is another question.  Flicked cigarettes have caused major structural fires and wildfires over many years.

I agree on the material used on the balcony chairs could burn easily. The fire went large without

being put out from what would begin as a minor fire. Home structural fires happen all of the time mainly from dropping a lit cigarette falling a sleep.

[FSHLOT]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Do you think it is ok for people to smoke (legal or not federally legal substances) on their balcony?

Seriously, i see no problem with it. As long as they are responsible about it. I would never turn someone in unless they are totally out of control. I dont worry what other people do on their vacation. 

 

 

[printman52]

Ohhhh so that explains the drug dogs. we just return from the sunrise sept 19 to the 24th. (it was the worst) when we were boarding before going up the escalators there was a cop there with a drug down sniffing everyone carry on and person.  

[Retiredmedic]

3 minutes ago, printman52 said:

Ohhhh so that explains the drug dogs. we just return from the sunrise sept 19 to the 24th. (it was the worst) when we were boarding before going up the escalators there was a cop there with a drug down sniffing everyone carry on and person.  

They aren;t always looking for drugs. They also look for food, plants and animals. An invasive non native plant or animal can wreck havoc in a ecosystem.

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

There was never any court involved in the Star Princess fire, merely an investigation by the UK MAIB.

From a safety standpoint, I don't see a real problem.  I won't comment on the social aspects.

I realize that there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a cigarette carelessly discarded started the fire on the Star Princess, but has there been any other credible theory as to how it started?

[spleenstomper]

6 minutes ago, printman52 said:

Ohhhh so that explains the drug dogs. we just return from the sunrise sept 19 to the 24th. (it was the worst) when we were boarding before going up the escalators there was a cop there with a drug down sniffing everyone carry on and person.  

At LAX the dogs look for bombs no drugs. They could have been for anything. 

[Elaine5715]

38 minutes ago, Retiredmedic said:

They aren;t always looking for drugs. They also look for food, plants and animals. An invasive non native plant or animal can wreck havoc in a ecosystem.

Boarding for drugs or explosives.  On return, organics, drugs, large amount of cash, etc

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

I realize that there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a cigarette carelessly discarded started the fire on the Star Princess, but has there been any other credible theory as to how it started?

No definitive cause was ever found.  As for a "credible" theory, the investigators, in a laboratory setting, with a Princess cruise line towel, tried to ignite it with a cigarette, and couldn't, so I don't hold this as too "credible" either.

[Dthomas1]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

I realize that there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a cigarette carelessly discarded started the fire on the Star Princess, but has there been any other credible theory as to how it started?

My true belief is that the cigarette did not catch the ship on fire. They used that reason as a cover

up from a fire that began within the ship. Is what had to begin as a minor fire if a cigarette was the cause how did it get so out of hand? 

[chengkp75]

1 minute ago, Dthomas1 said:

My true belief is that the cigarette did not catch the ship on fire. They used that reason as a cover

up from a fire that began within the ship. Is what had to begin as a minor fire if a cigarette was the cause how did it get so out of hand? 

So, the UK MAIB participated in the cover up?  As well as the Bermuda Maritime Administration, the USCG, and the US NTSB? What is their motivation.  The seat of the fire was found to be the balcony, not something within the ship.  The fire got out of hand because there was no fire detectors on the balcony, and the fire teams were unable to proceed from one balcony to the next, since the dividers did not open, they had to chop their way through.  However, the dividers did catch fire readily, and spread the fire from one cabin to the next.  The fire got out of hand because while smoke was smelled in the area at 0230 hours, it was not until 0309 that a passenger activated a manual fire alarm point, nearly 20 minutes later.  Given that a fire can double in size every 30 seconds, that 20 minute delay was critical.  It was not until 0326, nearly an hour after smoke was smelled, that the first fire teams entered the fire zone.  Once teams had responded, the fire was quickly extinguished, at 0436.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c706ae5274a4290000097/Star_Princess.pdf

 

 

 

 

[Dthomas1]

8 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

So, the UK MAIB participated in the cover up?  As well as the Bermuda Maritime Administration, the USCG, and the US NTSB? What is their motivation.  The seat of the fire was found to be the balcony, not something within the ship.  The fire got out of hand because there was no fire detectors on the balcony, and the fire teams were unable to proceed from one balcony to the next, since the dividers did not open, they had to chop their way through.  However, the dividers did catch fire readily, and spread the fire from one cabin to the next.  The fire got out of hand because while smoke was smelled in the area at 0230 hours, it was not until 0309 that a passenger activated a manual fire alarm point, nearly 20 minutes later.  Given that a fire can double in size every 30 seconds, that 20 minute delay was critical.  It was not until 0326, nearly an hour after smoke was smelled, that the first fire teams entered the fire zone.  Once teams had responded, the fire was quickly extinguished, at 0436.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c706ae5274a4290000097/Star_Princess.pdf

 

 

 

 

As quoted by you: No definitive cause was ever found. End of story.

[chengkp75]

4 minutes ago, Dthomas1 said:

As quoted by you: No definitive cause was ever found. End of story.

True that no cause was found, but there is no doubt as to the location of the fire, on a balcony, as is documented by the passenger who reported it as a "glow out on his balcony", and the video shot by a passenger showing the fire on the balcony.  It was not "something within the ship".

[staceyglow]

10 hours ago, FSHLOT said:

 I dont worry what other people do on their vacation. 

 

 

I don't either, until it starts impacting my vacation.  If someone was smoking weed on the balcony next to mine and the smoke was drifting into my space, I am going to ask them to stop.  If they don't, I would have no problem turning them in.

Edited September 26, 2022 by staceyglow

[Lane Hog]

13 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Do you think it is ok for people to smoke (legal or not federally legal substances) on their balcony?

Yes.  In the end, smoking on a balcony isn't the risk.  It's all about how the remnants are disposed of.  If there's an ashtray on the balcony, people wouldn't be as prone to flicking.

[FSHLOT]

7 hours ago, staceyglow said:

I don't either, until it starts impacting my vacation.  If someone was smoking weed on the balcony next to mine and the smoke was drifting into my space, I am going to ask them to stop.  If they don't, I would have no problem turning them in.

Well, Thats where we differ.  I wont let it ruin my vacation by smelling a little weed. If you read my post, i said "Unless they are out of control". A couple puffs is far from that. Do what you do, and i'll do the same!!  Enjoy!!