The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[aurelius180]

I do not remember the mention of a hairspray can with a hidden compartment in the original post. I was right to think the story was not given in full. As for the legality, why hide something on purpose when it is legal? makes no sense.

 

 

I assume you also missed the part where the OP said her husband was worried the legal tobacco looked an awful lot like marijuana so he took it out of its original packaging, placed it in a plastic bag, inserted said bag in the hairspray can with a pipe and then placed it in his dive bag. Because going through all that hassle makes it look less suspicious.

[johneeo]

Says "possibly illegal

behavior during their cruise vacation."

 

Let's say you smoke cigars.

 

You have a teenager with you on the cruise.

 

It is discovered that there are cigars in your cabin.

 

The Captain, God himself has a problem with this. He considers this to be POSSIBLY ILLEGAL BEHAVIOUR on your part, as you have made tobacco available to a minor.

 

Surely you would be in support of his decision if he were to throw you and your family off the ship.

[bajathree]

Thank you Steve. However, a few will continue to post that is was "proven to be legal." :rolleyes:

 

Paul...I believe that you have very good insight on this. If indeed it didn't test positive for THC...but was conveyed to Royal/captain that it may have been suggested to possibly be a Synthetic cannabis....then I believe that according to this statement the guest agreement would have been broken and Royal has plenty legs to stand on.

 

As of March 1, 2011, five cannabinoids, JWH-018, JWH-073, CP-47,497, JWH-200, and cannabicyclohexanol are now illegal in the US because these substances have the potential to be extremely harmful and, therefore, pose an imminent hazard to the public safety.

[richardb]

There are laws in the US.

 

While in the US, the Captain must abide by US laws, he is not god.

 

So, he can make any decisions he desires, wrong, right, or indifferent. However, there is a judicial process that could have repercussions for bad decisions on his part.

 

BTW, it is not totally his ship. It is RCI's ship, and RCI has responsibilities to deliver a product for those that have paid for it.

 

According to you, the captain, if he so desires could have executed the perps and tossed their bodies at sea.

 

Let me dismantle your argument one fact at a time.

 

1. No judicial review in this particular case, the passenger's contract requires to submit to arbitration. Besides, what US law requires him to allow passage?

 

2. The Captain has final say, no matter who actually owns the ship. If RCCL tells him to do something contrary to international law or ship/passenger safety, he can refuse and pay the consequences. The company can replace the captain, but they can't force him to do anything contrary to his good judgment.

 

3. I never said he can execute anyone, I said he can refuse boarding to anyone, just like an aircraft captain. Where do you think the aircraft captain got that authority? It is based on hundreds of years of maritime law.

[PH8]

Let's say you smoke cigars.

 

You have a teenager with you on the cruise.

 

It is discovered that there are cigars in your cabin.

 

The Captain, God himself has a problem with this. He considers this to be POSSIBLY ILLEGAL BEHAVIOUR on your part, as you have made tobacco available to a minor.

 

Surely you would be in support of his decision if he were to throw you and your family off the ship.

Oh please...how many families have packs of cigarettes or bottles of wine in their cabin...........sorry,but your scenario really makes no sense at all.....

[BeagleOne]

Reductio ad absurdum works in some examples. It's not working here.

[Debde]

And don't forget the razor blade that was added in a few posts later.

 

Did anybody add the straw to the mix??? :p

[Cruising89143]

Well the OP's light is on so she is reading this. Care to join in and explain why you left out part of your story?

[Aquahound]

Paul...I believe that you have very good insight on this. If indeed it didn't test positive for THC...but was conveyed to Royal/captain that it may have been suggested to possibly be a Synthetic cannabis....then I believe that according to this statement the guest agreement would have been broken and Royal has plenty legs to stand on.

 

As of March 1, 2011, five cannabinoids, JWH-018, JWH-073, CP-47,497, JWH-200, and cannabicyclohexanol are now illegal in the US because these substances have the potential to be extremely harmful and, therefore, pose an imminent hazard to the public safety.

 

Exactly. Steve, thank you for understanding the points I was making and that they are merely theory based on my education and field of expertise.

 

It isn't just about the "tobacco." It isn't just about the can. It isnt just about the dive bag. It's about the totality of the circumstances. You take a leafy substance that looks more like marijuana than tobacco, remove it from its marked packaging, conceal it in a fake can, include a pipe, and check it in your luggage....add in that it can't be proven one way or the other what it is and well, that's why we have all this drama on CC today.

 

I have the advantage of not only being a LEO, but I also have a Captains License. I can look at it from both the law and the right of a master to deny a potential problem.

[johneeo]

Oh please...how many families have packs of cigarettes or bottles of wine in their cabin...........sorry,but your scenario really makes no sense at all.....

 

Very little makes sense here, so let's begin by acknowledging that.

 

A point has been made that the Captain is God. As God, he can make decisions on POSSIBILITIES of illegal behaviour.

 

I agree, makes no sense whatsoever, but, some have argued that is exactly what the captain can do.

[PH8]

Very little makes sense here, so let's begin by acknowledging that.

 

A point has been made that the Captain is God. As God, he can make decisions on POSSIBILITIES of illegal behaviour.

 

I agree, makes no sense whatsoever, but, some have argued that is exactly what the captain can do.

I didnt say anything about the "tobacco" situation not making sense.......I said your post and you really need to leave God outta this.Thank you very much.

[reallyitsmema]

Well the OP's light is on so she is reading this. Care to join in and explain why you left out part of your story?

She posted to her rollcall a few times today including one post that said she can't talk about it on the boards but that we would be seeing something soon. She must have known that the news article was being posted today.

[johneeo]

Let me dismantle your argument one fact at a time.

 

You have dismantled nothing.

 

1. No judicial review in this particular case, the passenger's contract requires to submit to arbitration. Besides, what US law requires him to allow passage?

 

Are you unaware that arbitration is a legal / judicial proceding that has all of the benefits and processes as that of a court of law?

 

2. The Captain has final say, no matter who actually owns the ship. If RCCL tells him to do something contrary to international law or ship/passenger safety, he can refuse and pay the consequences. The company can replace the captain, but they can't force him to do anything contrary to his good judgment.

 

And just where did I state anything to the contrary?

 

3. I never said he can execute anyone

 

Again, I never said that you did.

[toocruisin2]

....I did find it interesting that RCI found it necessary to represent that the passengers were trying to bring illegal substances on the ship.

 

"Royal Caribbean spokeswoman Cynthia Martinez told Cruise Critic that the item tested positive for a controlled substance in a field test conducted by RCI security and witnessed by Port Canaveral police officers. "The 'tobacco' was taken by law enforcement to be destroyed," Martinez wrote in an e-mail, and, per the line's Guest Conduct Policy, which prohibits "illegal substances" and states that the line can remove passengers who violate the policy, Mary and Robert were denied boarding."

 

This comment was rebuffed by the authorities and the police report reviewed by Cruise Critic.

 

If RCI was concerned that the "secretive canister" was a security issue in and of itself, then whether the contents were legal or illegal is not material. While I agree that RCI has the right to take the passengers off the ship, I think the OP did us a favor by alerting us to be aware that possibly (possibly) innocent, but suspicious behavior can be risky. Paul

[Big_G]

There are laws in the US.

 

While in the US, the Captain must abide by US laws, he is not god.

 

So, he can make any decisions he desires, wrong, right, or indifferent. However, there is a judicial process that could have repercussions for bad decisions on his part.

 

BTW, it is not totally his ship. It is RCI's ship, and RCI has responsibilities to deliver a product for those that have paid for it.

 

According to you, the captain, if he so desires could have executed the perps and tossed their bodies at sea.

 

What laws was he not in abidance with?

[dirtywhiteboy]

You know I will bet you that most all here would have a different opinion if this was someone trying out security with legal substances for a possible terror plot;)

so we have gone from bringing on tobacco to a terrorist plot? OMg

[beer1234]

Geez, Where's Perry Mason when you need him.

[Big_G]

There are laws in the US.

 

While in the US, the Captain must abide by US laws, he is not god.

 

So, he can make any decisions he desires, wrong, right, or indifferent. However, there is a judicial process that could have repercussions for bad decisions on his part.

 

BTW, it is not totally his ship. It is RCI's ship, and RCI has responsibilities to deliver a product for those that have paid for it.

 

According to you, the captain, if he so desires could have executed the perps and tossed their bodies at sea.

 

Let me dismantle your argument one fact at a time.

 

You have dismantled nothing.

 

1. No judicial review in this particular case, the passenger's contract requires to submit to arbitration. Besides, what US law requires him to allow passage?

 

Are you unaware that arbitration is a legal / judicial proceding that has all of the benefits and processes as that of a court of law?

 

2. The Captain has final say, no matter who actually owns the ship. If RCCL tells him to do something contrary to international law or ship/passenger safety, he can refuse and pay the consequences. The company can replace the captain, but they can't force him to do anything contrary to his good judgment.

 

And just where did I state anything to the contrary?

 

3. I never said he can execute anyone

 

Again, I never said that you did.

 

Uh, yea you did.

[grand isle joe]

so we have gone from bringing on tobacco to a terrorist plot? OMg

 

.....it's all George Bush's fault!.......;)

[wreckem2013]

It seems to me he was trying to smuggle on a hookah pipe and hookah tobacco. Hookah pipes require coals to smoke. It most assuredly would be a prohibited item. Technically speaking they can deny you boarding(but often don't) for bringing on prohibited items. The efforts to conceal said items sent off red flags.

 

I don't believe the couple will win in binding arbitration. Royal Caribean can just point to their boiler plate contracts and say they were violated. Which technically they were because of the hookah pipe. Yes hookah pipes are legal, but even land based hotels have banned them because of the fire hazard.

 

And no the OP of the original thread was NOT entirely honest. She posted her side of the story to get sympathy.

 

No sympathy from me. It was sheer stupidity on the part of her husband.

[renech]

IMO, the bottom line isn't so much about the legality of substance itself, but more about the husband being labeled as "high risk." Once that was even remotely considered, all of their rights to cruise went poof. I'm really VERY okay with the Captain having the right to make that call and act on it - whether or not the person in question actually had ill-intentions or not. It's like joking around about bombs in an airport - you just don't do it without possibly dire consequences.

 

I don't think any of us has enough of the details to know what the original intent was, or the specific actions of those involved. I'd like to give the OP and spouse the benefit of the doubt and chalk this whole incident up to some really bad judgement and decisions - from concealing a suspicious looking substance, to bringing it under a bright spotlight in the forums. I do sympathize with them for missing their cruise, but I just don't see how they have a leg to stand on legally.

[wayne_trisha]

Exactly. Steve, thank you for understanding the points I was making and that they are merely theory based on my education and field of expertise.

 

I have the advantage of not only being a LEO, but I also have a Captains License. I can look at it from both the law and the right of a master to deny a potential problem.

 

I think you speak with knowledge and experience on these matters and I am respectful of your opinion.

 

Do you think if the bag of smoking material was large enough they might have held them for further lab testing?

 

Many people speak of a dry run. Do you really think that someone with a federal firearms dealer license would risk losing that license over the amount of marijuana that would fit in a shaving can? How much dope can you cram into that can? And if it is a supposed dry run, does anyone really think the marijuana from the caribbean is that much better and worth losing a federal firearms license over?

 

I know people, even very smart ones, do incredibly dumb acts because they think they can get away with it. I personally beleive the husband didn't want to explain his perfectly legal tobacco to some over zealous security who may not know what it is. I once got yelled at for smoking a hookah with some friends. We were deployed to Saudi Arabia and bought the pipe (water bong) and tobacco right on base, all completely legal, but it certainly does not look legal. We were not allowed to use the hookah anymore.

[wreckem2013]

Let me dismantle your argument one fact at a time.

 

You have dismantled nothing.

 

1. No judicial review in this particular case, the passenger's contract requires to submit to arbitration. Besides, what US law requires him to allow passage?

 

Are you unaware that arbitration is a legal / judicial proceding that has all of the benefits and processes as that of a court of law?

 

2. The Captain has final say, no matter who actually owns the ship. If RCCL tells him to do something contrary to international law or ship/passenger safety, he can refuse and pay the consequences. The company can replace the captain, but they can't force him to do anything contrary to his good judgment.

 

And just where did I state anything to the contrary?

 

3. I never said he can execute anyone

 

Again, I never said that you did.

 

You forgot the part that binding arbitration heavily favors the corporation requiring it. So much so, that corporations almost always win in binding arbitration.

[wayne_trisha]

What laws was he not in abidance with?

 

contract law

[worldtraveler19]

welll, legally it sounds like they wont get a refund/compensation! they should have known better--they just had to wait until they got to Jamaica and imbibe during the day as they pleased- yah, 'mon -maybe next time if they find the urge to bring their favorite herb they should conceal it in teabags and hope it can pass for tea--- but if RCI finds wine and other forms of alcohol (in standard or concealed bottles), then what makes them think they can get away with it?--

 

maybe they should have not concealed it -- they just put it on their carry on bag--- maybe they should have brought apple or peach flavor or something else which has a different appearance, instead of halo hookah summer swing-- RCI may have overreacted b/c it was just tobacco, but it was their turf in a 4000 passenger cruise - all passengers signed the contract, otherwise they dont board!

 

and if RCI had reason to think this couple was potentially high risk (for prohibited substances), then RCI is likely to prevail....