Liquor on lately???

[tdcjerry]

True that

[swedish weave]

Sorry' date=' hard times required a bit of a menu reduction. But, look for new and exciting additions in the future. ;)[/color']

 

PE

 

 

Nice selection !!!!:D

[mag]

Not one to say that I encourage alcohol smuggling due to it's effect on NCLs bottom line and it is also against NCL policy to bring alcohol onboard, Rumrunners they work, I'm not saying to try them, not that anyone ever listens to what I say. On our last cruise there were a few passg. who used RR with great success, not saying it was me or anyone I had been cruising with, or that I encourage someone to do it due to it's effect on NCLs bottom line and that other thing about the NCL no alcohol smuggling aloud.

This could be Basher or Cheerleader or a little 2 faced? have fun with it.

 

 

LOL...Rumrunners...I'm not sayin I use em...I'm not sayin I listen to ya...not sayin they have worked every time for me...just sayin...

[flowerchild]

I believe NCL makes much more of an effort to catch smugglers on cruises that are during the "spring break" period...

[erdoran]

Smuggling is NOT theft. Someone else compared it to the person who brings their own candy & popcorn to a movie theatre. Both are against the vendor's policy. IMHO the reason people aren't allowed to bring their own popcorn, candy or booze is so the vendor has a monopoly on sales of those items and can inflate the prices accordingly.

 

I'm not saying anyone should (or shouldn't) smuggle, but let's at least understand the reaiity of the "no smuggling" rule. If it was easy to bring our own booze on board then perhaps a lot fewer overpriced drinks would be sold and profits would be reduced accordingly.

 

There have also been people saying how it "costs NCL money" --it certainly has the potential to decrease profits if NCL sells fewer drinks, although for some of us (me included) I don't care about booze one way or another, and I will buy far fewer drinks if they are overpriced WHETHER OR NOT I had liquor in my room. I might still buy a couple of the fancier drinks that I couldn't make myself--I don't see it impacting the number of drinks I would buy at all!

 

People also talk about fare increases if people smuggle--does anyone have any objective data that this is correct?

The statement that is being made is "if the number of drinks NCL sells decreases, then they will lose $ and have to increase fares". By extension, that makes any non-drinker the "bad guy" based on this assumption, whether they've smuggled on booze (why assume that someone is going to drink x and by bringing booze that will reduce it significantly? that may not be the case at all!) or whether they choose not to buy drinks that THEY PERCEIVE as being overpriced (let's avoid the debate about their pricing, if someone isn't willing to pay $9 to $12 for a drink--or whatever they cost, then it's their absolute right not to buy those drinks). It also makes anyone who buys excursions directly rather than through the cruiseline, who shop onshore for duty-free stuff, jewelry, souvenirs, brings their own soda onboard rather than buying a soda card, etc just as guilty and responsible.

 

Again, I'm not condoning breaking rules--but I wonder how many people who flame booze smugglers never break any rules themselves--never speed, smoke in a non-smoking area, buy a shore excursion from anyone other than the cruise line, etc, etc?

 

(ducking & running!)

[Planer's Edge]

Smuggling is NOT theft. Someone else compared it to the person who brings their own candy & popcorn to a movie theatre. Both are against the vendor's policy. IMHO the reason people aren't allowed to bring their own popcorn, candy or booze is so the vendor has a monopoly on sales of those items and can inflate the prices accordingly.

 

I'm not saying anyone should (or shouldn't) smuggle, but let's at least understand the reaiity of the "no smuggling" rule. If it was easy to bring our own booze on board then perhaps a lot fewer overpriced drinks would be sold and profits would be reduced accordingly.

 

There have also been people saying how it "costs NCL money" --it certainly has the potential to decrease profits if NCL sells fewer drinks, although for some of us (me included) I don't care about booze one way or another, and I will buy far fewer drinks if they are overpriced WHETHER OR NOT I had liquor in my room. I might still buy a couple of the fancier drinks that I couldn't make myself--I don't see it impacting the number of drinks I would buy at all!

 

People also talk about fare increases if people smuggle--does anyone have any objective data that this is correct?

The statement that is being made is "if the number of drinks NCL sells decreases, then they will lose $ and have to increase fares". By extension, that makes any non-drinker the "bad guy" based on this assumption, whether they've smuggled on booze (why assume that someone is going to drink x and by bringing booze that will reduce it significantly? that may not be the case at all!) or whether they choose not to buy drinks that THEY PERCEIVE as being overpriced (let's avoid the debate about their pricing, if someone isn't willing to pay $9 to $12 for a drink--or whatever they cost, then it's their absolute right not to buy those drinks). It also makes anyone who buys excursions directly rather than through the cruiseline, who shop onshore for duty-free stuff, jewelry, souvenirs, brings their own soda onboard rather than buying a soda card, etc just as guilty and responsible.

 

Again, I'm not condoning breaking rules--but I wonder how many people who flame booze smugglers never break any rules themselves--never speed, smoke in a non-smoking area, buy a shore excursion from anyone other than the cruise line, etc, etc?

 

(ducking & running!)

 

Spoken like a true Kool-aid drinking Liberal. Good on ya for standing up for what society has fed ya. Policies...rules...laws....they are all interchangeable. :rolleyes:

 

I especially love the rehashing of the old standby in your last paragraph. But the last part about buying shore excursion is a new one on me. Do you know something that we don't about some new upcoming cruise line rule. :eek: :rolleyes:

 

PE

[swedish weave]

We, as humans, learn by example. I follow the examples set forth by our elected government officials !!

[luddite]

Smuggling is NOT theft. Someone else compared it to the person who brings their own candy & popcorn to a movie theatre. Both are against the vendor's policy. IMHO the reason people aren't allowed to bring their own popcorn, candy or booze is so the vendor has a monopoly on sales of those items and can inflate the prices accordingly.

 

I'm not saying anyone should (or shouldn't) smuggle, but let's at least understand the reaiity of the "no smuggling" rule. If it was easy to bring our own booze on board then perhaps a lot fewer overpriced drinks would be sold and profits would be reduced accordingly.

 

There have also been people saying how it "costs NCL money" --it certainly has the potential to decrease profits if NCL sells fewer drinks, although for some of us (me included) I don't care about booze one way or another, and I will buy far fewer drinks if they are overpriced WHETHER OR NOT I had liquor in my room. I might still buy a couple of the fancier drinks that I couldn't make myself--I don't see it impacting the number of drinks I would buy at all!

 

People also talk about fare increases if people smuggle--does anyone have any objective data that this is correct?

The statement that is being made is "if the number of drinks NCL sells decreases, then they will lose $ and have to increase fares". By extension, that makes any non-drinker the "bad guy" based on this assumption, whether they've smuggled on booze (why assume that someone is going to drink x and by bringing booze that will reduce it significantly? that may not be the case at all!) or whether they choose not to buy drinks that THEY PERCEIVE as being overpriced (let's avoid the debate about their pricing, if someone isn't willing to pay $9 to $12 for a drink--or whatever they cost, then it's their absolute right not to buy those drinks). It also makes anyone who buys excursions directly rather than through the cruiseline, who shop onshore for duty-free stuff, jewelry, souvenirs, brings their own soda onboard rather than buying a soda card, etc just as guilty and responsible.

 

Again, I'm not condoning breaking rules--but I wonder how many people who flame booze smugglers never break any rules themselves--never speed, smoke in a non-smoking area, buy a shore excursion from anyone other than the cruise line, etc, etc?

 

(ducking & running!)

 

Pretty funny stuff. :D:D

[mag]

Smuggling is NOT theft. Someone else compared it to the person who brings their own candy & popcorn to a movie theatre. Both are against the vendor's policy. IMHO the reason people aren't allowed to bring their own popcorn, candy or booze is so the vendor has a monopoly on sales of those items and can inflate the prices accordingly.

 

I'm not saying anyone should (or shouldn't) smuggle, but let's at least understand the reaiity of the "no smuggling" rule. If it was easy to bring our own booze on board then perhaps a lot fewer overpriced drinks would be sold and profits would be reduced accordingly.

 

There have also been people saying how it "costs NCL money" --it certainly has the potential to decrease profits if NCL sells fewer drinks, although for some of us (me included) I don't care about booze one way or another, and I will buy far fewer drinks if they are overpriced WHETHER OR NOT I had liquor in my room. I might still buy a couple of the fancier drinks that I couldn't make myself--I don't see it impacting the number of drinks I would buy at all!

 

People also talk about fare increases if people smuggle--does anyone have any objective data that this is correct?

The statement that is being made is "if the number of drinks NCL sells decreases, then they will lose $ and have to increase fares". By extension, that makes any non-drinker the "bad guy" based on this assumption, whether they've smuggled on booze (why assume that someone is going to drink x and by bringing booze that will reduce it significantly? that may not be the case at all!) or whether they choose not to buy drinks that THEY PERCEIVE as being overpriced (let's avoid the debate about their pricing, if someone isn't willing to pay $9 to $12 for a drink--or whatever they cost, then it's their absolute right not to buy those drinks). It also makes anyone who buys excursions directly rather than through the cruiseline, who shop onshore for duty-free stuff, jewelry, souvenirs, brings their own soda onboard rather than buying a soda card, etc just as guilty and responsible.

 

Again, I'm not condoning breaking rules--but I wonder how many people who flame booze smugglers never break any rules themselves--never speed, smoke in a non-smoking area, buy a shore excursion from anyone other than the cruise line, etc, etc?

 

(ducking & running!)

 

Spoken like a true Kool-aid drinking Liberal. Good on ya for standing up for what society has fed ya. Policies...rules...laws....they are all interchangeable. :rolleyes:

 

I especially love the rehashing of the old standby in your last paragraph. But the last part about buying shore excursion is a new one on me. Do you know something that we don't about some new upcoming cruise line rule. :eek: :rolleyes:

 

PE

 

WOWEEE...erdoran are you a "Kool-aid drinking Liberal"?? I truly fail to see what politics has to do with any of this?

[Planer's Edge]

WOWEEE...erdoran are you a "Kool-aid drinking Liberal"?? I truly fail to see what politics has to do with any of this?

 

I said nothing about politics. Can no one have liberal or conservative values and not be related to politics. Seems some one is a bit overly sensitive to the topic at hand. We all very aware of your stance on this topic and we are equally certain we will not change your mind. But, those on your side cintinue to "recruit" people into breaking rules and will continue to try to convince them that it is wrong. Never the twain shall meet. ;)

 

PE

[erdoran]

1. I'm actually relatively conservative.

2. I am trying to differentiate between breaking laws enacted by one's government (i.e. shoplifting is illegal) and breaking RULES set forth by a profit-making entity. Of COURSE they can make any rules they want, and by buying a "contract of carriage" we agree to obey those rules.

3. The bit about shore excursions--what I meant by my examples are:

 

• my perception of the booze discussion is that there are two issues: rule-breaking & the morality/wisdom thereof, which I am not addressing, and "by doing BYOB you are going to cause fares to go up because you are giving less $$ to NCL than you would otherwise"
  
• any time you cruise and you buy something elsewhere (or choose not to buy at all) then you are taking away from NCL's profits--whether it is not buying drinks, or not buying excursions--each of these examples impact NCL's (and all other cruiselines') profits!
  
• So, SEPARATE from the rule-breaking issue I wanted to address the perceived expectation that it's our responsibility to "SHOP NCL" by not smuggling.
  

Again, for myself I can do with or without booze. I wouldn't bother to smuggle because I don't care enough about having liquor that I'd want to go through the hassle if I get caught. I just object to the perceived "should" that people "should" buy drinks from NCL so they don't lose $$ and have to raise fares. I wanted to point out the flaws in this point of view.

 

I have no issue with "it's a rule not to smuggle booze and you should obey that rule"--but those who choose to break it are on the same level as those who break ANY rule--no better and no worse--and they are NOT criminals. So the "don't smuggle" discussion really comes down to obeying rules, NOT impacting NCL's profits-because if we bring the profit thing into it, then we also have to take on the excursions, shopping, sodas, etc. people because it's all the same--the "not shopping NCL" thing.

 

OK?

[newmexicoNita]

I believe NCL makes much more of an effort to catch smugglers on cruises that are during the "spring break" period...

 

Every piece of luggage goes through the same machines every cruise. There may have been a time when your theory was correct, but not anymore. We have seen lines of maybe close to 100 people waiting to get their luggage from the "naughty" room and I am not talking spring break...

 

Nita

[mag]

I said nothing about politics. Can no one have liberal or conservative values and not be related to politics. Seems some one is a bit overly sensitive to the topic at hand. We all very aware of your stance on this topic and we are equally certain we will not change your mind. But' date=' those on your side cintinue to "recruit" people into breaking rules and will continue to try to convince them that it is wrong. Never the twain shall meet. ;)

 

PE[/color']

 

Ok, I see your point but I still think that "Kool-aid drinking Liberal" is a political way of characterizing someone...

 

I have to disagree - I am not sensitive at all on this topic and I also do not care what anyone else does...whether you smuggle or not is your business and I say do whatever you want. I just thought that it was funny the way that erdoran presented his opinion.

 

As I have said before, I can agree to disagree.

[swedish weave]

Every piece of luggage goes through the same machines every cruise. There may have been a time when your theory was correct, but not anymore. We have seen lines of maybe close to 100 people waiting to get their luggage from the "naughty" room and I am not talking spring break...

 

Nita

 

 

Nita Nita ---- Why were you there ??:D:D

[newmexicoNita]

Smuggling is NOT theft. Someone else compared it to the person who brings their own candy & popcorn to a movie theatre. Both are against the vendor's policy. IMHO the reason people aren't allowed to bring their own popcorn, candy or booze is so the vendor has a monopoly on sales of those items and can inflate the prices accordingly.

 

I'm not saying anyone should (or shouldn't) smuggle, but let's at least understand the reaiity of the "no smuggling" rule. If it was easy to bring our own booze on board then perhaps a lot fewer overpriced drinks would be sold and profits would be reduced accordingly.

 

There have also been people saying how it "costs NCL money" --it certainly has the potential to decrease profits if NCL sells fewer drinks, although for some of us (me included) I don't care about booze one way or another, and I will buy far fewer drinks if they are overpriced WHETHER OR NOT I had liquor in my room. I might still buy a couple of the fancier drinks that I couldn't make myself--I don't see it impacting the number of drinks I would buy at all!

 

People also talk about fare increases if people smuggle--does anyone have any objective data that this is correct?

The statement that is being made is "if the number of drinks NCL sells decreases, then they will lose $ and have to increase fares". By extension, that makes any non-drinker the "bad guy" based on this assumption, whether they've smuggled on booze (why assume that someone is going to drink x and by bringing booze that will reduce it significantly? that may not be the case at all!) or whether they choose not to buy drinks that THEY PERCEIVE as being overpriced (let's avoid the debate about their pricing, if someone isn't willing to pay $9 to $12 for a drink--or whatever they cost, then it's their absolute right not to buy those drinks). It also makes anyone who buys excursions directly rather than through the cruiseline, who shop onshore for duty-free stuff, jewelry, souvenirs, brings their own soda onboard rather than buying a soda card, etc just as guilty and responsible.

 

Again, I'm not condoning breaking rules--but I wonder how many people who flame booze smugglers never break any rules themselves--never speed, smoke in a non-smoking area, buy a shore excursion from anyone other than the cruise line, etc, etc?

 

(ducking & running!)

 

yes it is theft, maybe not to you, but to many. It is in essence stealing from the company. As for breaking laws, maybe I just see this differently; those of us who have broken a traffic law and most have, probably didn't do it deliberately. I have gotten speeding tickets, but I don't remember ever saying, oh, I think I will see if I can speed without getting caught, I have not realized I was speeding..Many of us do not smoke nor would we in a non-smoking area, park in a handicapped spot, or do anything else deliberately. (spelling) As for booking a cruise privately that is not breaking any company policy..

 

You mention things like buying duty free on shore, bringing soda on or mention the non drinker, these statements do not pertain to breaking rules and policies. You are talking apples and oranges to convince yourself what you do is perfectly ok. A slight correction to your comments, no, drinks do not cost 9 to 12 dollars. If you order fru fru drinks in souvenior glasses yes, but otherwise no. A standard cocktail is around $6.00, a glass of wine from $6.00 to about $7.50, etc.. there are a few exceptions if you order top of the line brands.

 

NIta

[newmexicoNita]

Spoken like a true Kool-aid drinking Liberal. Good on ya for standing up for what society has fed ya. Policies...rules...laws....they are all interchangeable. :rolleyes:

 

I especially love the rehashing of the old standby in your last paragraph. But the last part about buying shore excursion is a new one on me. Do you know something that we don't about some new upcoming cruise line rule. :eek: :rolleyes:

 

PE

 

I almost mentioned the lib part, but let you do it instead...

[KSinMex]

O.K. - This may or may not be relevent, since I am booked to sail from Valparaiso, Chile in two weeks :(

 

BUT just in case we sail, what do you suggest I do to avoid the "naughty room" for legitimate liquids? Don't laugh, but I take apple cider vinegar daily to prevent acid reflux. I think that would look suspicious in my suitcase. Is it better to take anything suspicious looking out of the checked baggage upon arrival and trasfer to carry-ons?

[Planer's Edge]

O.K. - This may or may not be relevent, since I am booked to sail from Valparaiso, Chile in two weeks :(

 

BUT just in case we sail, what do you suggest I do to avoid the "naughty room" for legitimate liquids? Don't laugh, but I take apple cider vinegar daily to prevent acid reflux. I think that would look suspicious in my suitcase. Is it better to take anything suspicious looking out of the checked baggage upon arrival and trasfer to carry-ons?

 

It would be less of a hassle if you transferred it to your carry-on and declared it at security.

 

PE

[PokerDave]

Just to get another couple whacks in on this horse... And by the way, I book through Casinos At Sea and get free drinks on an NCL cruise, so this isn't a big issue for me personally, although I might do it anway for convenience in the room...

 

Couple main issues here. First, breaking rules or even laws. We all break some. ALL of us... Driving is replete with examples:

 

- complete stop at a stop sign

- speeding as has been mentioned

- turn signal on the requisite distance prior to turning or changing lanes ( this one may be the best example as we all learn the correct driving laws as kids, but almost no one in traffic follows the letter of them at all... )

- crossing a solid yellow line

 

The example I used last time I chimed in got the thread shot so I will word this a little more carefully than I did last time, so it might live long enough for some discussion. In my state, certain "behaviors" were outlawed 100 years ago during significantly more puritanical times, but are engaged in likely by the majority of residents in the state. These laws are never enforced and almost universally ignored. Are those who are saying you can't break a law ( or a rule that you've signed on to through a cruise contract ) suggesting that I should follow such laws just because they exist?

 

The other issue is "Stealing" from NCL or affecting their profit. I am an intelligent adult. We all make choices of what rules we follow. I personally am a VERY lucrative customer for NCL ( specialty restaurants, shopping on board, casino losses, excursions, repeat passenger, etc ). In fact, let's just say for the sake of argument I am in the top 20% most profitable customers of NCL even though I smuggle. Am I REALLY obligated to feel I am stealing from NCL more than a person who is cheap/poor/frugal/whatever and is in the bottom 20% of profitability? I promise if NCL could manage to fill a ship with people like me, but in order to do so they had to allow smuggling they would immediately change the rule.

 

P.E., Nita, how would you refute my kool-aid drinking liberal position?

[erdoran]

yes it is theft, maybe not to you, but to many. It is in essence stealing from the company. As for breaking laws, maybe I just see this differently; those of us who have broken a traffic law and most have, probably didn't do it deliberately. I have gotten speeding tickets, but I don't remember ever saying, oh, I think I will see if I can speed without getting caught, I have not realized I was speeding..Many of us do not smoke nor would we in a non-smoking area, park in a handicapped spot, or do anything else deliberately. (spelling) As for booking a cruise privately that is not breaking any company policy..

 

You mention things like buying duty free on shore, bringing soda on or mention the non drinker, these statements do not pertain to breaking rules and policies. You are talking apples and oranges to convince yourself what you do is perfectly ok. A slight correction to your comments, no, drinks do not cost 9 to 12 dollars. If you order fru fru drinks in souvenior glasses yes, but otherwise no. A standard cocktail is around $6.00, a glass of wine from $6.00 to about $7.50, etc.. there are a few exceptions if you order top of the line brands.

 

NIta

I'm not justifying anything, I don't smuggle booze so I don't need to make excuses for myself. IF DH wants to drink I'll order a bar setup (thanks for the idea). I might bring a bottle or two of wine aboard and pay the corkage if I care enough to bother, or I'll buy a bottle onboard if I want one.

 

And others on this board have said drinks are $9 to $12. I think on Carnival the drink special was $5, regular were $9 and in fancy glasses were $12.

[Planer's Edge]

Just to get another couple whacks in on this horse... And by the way, I book through Casinos At Sea and get free drinks on an NCL cruise, so this isn't a big issue for me personally, although I might do it anway for convenience in the room...

 

Couple main issues here. First, breaking rules or even laws. We all break some. ALL of us... Driving is replete with examples:

 

- complete stop at a stop sign

- speeding as has been mentioned

- turn signal on the requisite distance prior to turning or changing lanes ( this one may be the best example as we all learn the correct driving laws as kids, but almost no one in traffic follows the letter of them at all... )

- crossing a solid yellow line

 

The example I used last time I chimed in got the thread shot so I will word this a little more carefully than I did last time, so it might live long enough for some discussion. In my state, certain "behaviors" were outlawed 100 years ago during significantly more puritanical times, but are engaged in likely by the majority of residents in the state. These laws are never enforced and almost universally ignored. Are those who are saying you can't break a law ( or a rule that you've signed on to through a cruise contract ) suggesting that I should follow such laws just because they exist?

 

The other issue is "Stealing" from NCL or affecting their profit. I am an intelligent adult. We all make choices of what rules we follow. I personally am a VERY lucrative customer for NCL ( specialty restaurants, shopping on board, casino losses, excursions, repeat passenger, etc ). In fact, let's just say for the sake of argument I am in the top 20% most profitable customers of NCL even though I smuggle. Am I REALLY obligated to feel I am stealing from NCL more than a person who is cheap/poor/frugal/whatever and is in the bottom 20% of profitability? I promise if NCL could manage to fill a ship with people like me, but in order to do so they had to allow smuggling they would immediately change the rule.

 

P.E., Nita, how would you refute my kool-aid drinking liberal position?

 

Ya, all one of your NCL cruises. ;)

 

PE

[Planer's Edge]

 

And others on this board have said drinks are $9 to $12. I think on Carnival the drink special was $5, regular were $9 and in fancy glasses were $12.

Drinks prices are NOT $9 - $12 on NCL. The drink prices are very comparable on all mass market lines.

 

PE

[WinnieinWA]

We, as humans, learn by example. I follow the examples set forth by our elected government officials !!

 

Now that is scarey!!! John Edwards comes to mind.:p:D

[fin]

Just from memory, we have had a President, numerous Senators, countless Representatives, Governors, Attorneys General, stock brokers and yes even a prominent Police Commissioner (nearly head of Homeland Security) all go to jail (or get pardoned before they did).

 

I guess,therefore, it is naive of those of us who were raised to honor and obey rules to expect that many other people will find it wrong to deliberately do something which you have signed a paper agreeing NOT to do, and then continue to come and brag about it on the world wide web.

 

The idiodic panoply of excuses put forth to justify this dishonest behavior used to really annoy me, but now I have finally begun to smile at the ad hominum counterpunches or the infinite variations of "all the kids are doing it".

 

Expecting moral or honest behavior when alcohol and money is concerned is seemingly a formula for failure.

[swedish weave]

Now that is scarey!!! John Edwards comes to mind.:p:D

 

John Edwards --- et al.

 

 

 

“Et al.’ is a scholarly abbreviation of the Latin phrase et alia, which means “and others.” It is commonly used when you don’t want to name all the people or things in a list, and works in roughly the same way as “etc.”