The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[Aquahound]

Maybe this is why I questioned this story from the beginning. A thorough investigation looks at all sides.

 

Precisely! And judgment is not passed until all sides are thoroughly examined.

 

If any of my folks passed judgment based on an Internet blog, I would fire them on the spot. ;)

[johneeo]

I guess you did.

 

Nice how you take it out of context.

 

Following is the entire post:

 

Originally Posted by richardb

, the Captain can deem you a security risk and put you off HIS ship, and it is decision alone.

 

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.

[ryano]

Precisely! And judgment is not passed until all sides are thoroughly examined.

 

Yet that is exactly what has been done at least 200 times or more in this thread alone........probably 600 - 700 times in the other thread.

 

the scary thing is, some of these folks serve on juries :eek:

[Jman1118]

I have held a security clearance for 24 years now. I have seen people do some really sutpid stuff, some of if is simply boggles the mind. It certainly appears it was a rather dumb move to hide the smoking material along with a pipe. Why he did it, we do not know.

 

I agree the captain can remove anyone he wants. Absolutely. But the captain's actions might violate a contract without cause. The CC story is already suspect on the part of RCCL. They told CC it was illegal and destroyed yet that is contested by someon (whoever it was) and backed up by the police report.

 

I personally beleive it was miscommunication on the security people to the captain. Refund them, give them a nice free cruise, and a happy ending for both.

 

I love how Royal Caribbean says it was destroyed while the original poster says it was returned to them. Makes me wonder what really happened vs. who is lying. The captain can remove anyone he wants, but he better have a good reason and in this case I believe he was told the substance was illegal (was it or wasn't ? this story is running in circles) therefore removed the passenger.

[rubrrick]

As did I. As did most people. As did anyone with any common sense. And even with this article, the whole story is still not out since RCI's PR department obviously doesn't know what happened from their side.

 

While I still feel the original op was mostly truthful, the fact remains she did intentionally leave out the part about the faux can. What else was left out....whether it be from the ops side or RCIs side?

 

 

It's 7:15 here in Arizona.......and I'm just finishing page 9. I started less than a half hour ago.

 

Baja3 started it this morning.........and I just got home from work........and I cannot believe the number of posts!

 

We both said that there is more to this than has been said.......any you know what......Paul......there is still more to come out, we just don't know it yet! The investigation has hardly begun......maybe!!;)

 

The Captain of the Freedom of the Seas........is not a short time captain, but very experienced, and his norm is to let everyone sail.

 

So, why did he deny this couple??? Yep, I'm convinced I still don't know the whole story........well I'm jumping ahead of myself, as I have 8 or 9 more pages to read!!:D:D

 

Rick

[wayne_trisha]

Thank you...and I respect you and anyone else who can express an opinion respectfully.

 

I would like to think a firearms dealer would not do this. However, every career field has its bad apples (including law enforcement). Heck, we don't even know that's what he is. He could just work there. It's yet another thing we are taking at face value.

 

Great point about maybe just working there. I am way to optimistic about people. I guess I get balanced by my darling wife who is cynical.

 

As an air traffic controller, I was SHOCKED when the guy I worked 40+ hours a week for over a year was hauled away as a dope smoker in the Air Force. I wasn't the only very surprised person.

[mjldvlks]

Thank you...and I respect you and anyone else who can express an opinion respectfully.

 

With regard to further lab testing, we are not sure that isn't happening. It may very well be. However, unless the Florida FDLE lab has changed recently, the results won't come anytime soon.

 

I would like to think a firearms dealer would not do this. However, every career field has its bad apples (including law enforcement). Heck, we don't even know that's what he is. He could just work there. It's yet another thing we are taking at face value.

 

You want to know what really sucks? I have the contacts with both PC and RCI to find out exactly what happened. But to do so would be abusing my powers as a LEO since it would be for personal reasons....and I am not one of those bad apples. ;)

Paul,

 

Wouldn't you expect the police officers who actually saw it to be as suspicious as you are if there was a possibility this substance was indeed illegal? Yet everything we have heard shows no apparent suspiscion. They apparently returned the stuff to OP's DH. Surely the concelament alone would be enough PC to confiscate it for further testing.

 

You have said several times it was not proven to be tobacco. But it was not proven to be anything else either. DH says it was flavored tobacco. If that is true, (and it seems to be consistent with, or at least not contradicted by, what the port lady and the police report are saying) I don't think that is far from what OP was saying. Still I would have expected her to (a) have known and (b) said something about the false bottomed can. But even if the Cpt deems them to be "high risk" when he cannot point to a specific violation of the guest conduct policy I have a problem with BOTH kicking them off AND keeping their money. But if I read your posts correctly, so do you.

[Aquahound]

I love how Royal Caribbean says it was destroyed while the original poster says it was returned to them. Makes me wonder what really happened vs. who is lying. The captain can remove anyone he wants, but he better have a good reason and in this case I believe he was told the substance was illegal (was it or wasn't ? this story is running in circles) therefore removed the passenger.

 

I once found a camera that wound up getting media attention. When the Associated Press article came out, after interviewing me, it said I went in to the water to investigate what looked like a rotting tomatoe.

 

What? First of all, why? Second, I never said anything remotely close to that, and my story didn't have near the sensational appeal of a story like is.

 

Point is, never believe all that is reported, even from what you think is a trustworthy source. You never know what details are a little off.

[sleepless]

Pushka, what we know is what we read here. And that can hardly be taken as fact.

 

You have taken sides and that's your right. But you have to understand that negative THC does not mean it was a legal substance.

 

The op already lied to all of us about what it was. Why would she do that if she thought she was doing the right thing?

 

 

Exactly.

[wreckem2013]

Paul,

 

Wouldn't you expect the police officers who actually saw it to be as suspicious as you are if there was a possibility this substance was indeed illegal? Yet everything we have heard shows no apparent suspiscion. They apparently returned the stuff to OP's DH. Surely the concelament alone would be enough PC to confiscate it for further testing.

 

You have said several times it was not proven to be tobacco. But it was not proven to be anything else either. DH says it was flavored tobacco. If that is true, (and it seems to be consistent with, or at least not contradicted by, what the port lady and the police report are saying) I don't think that is far from what OP was saying. Still I would have expected her to (a) have known and (b) said something about the false bottomed can. But even if the Cpt deems them to be "high risk" when he cannot point to a specific violation of the guest conduct policy I have a problem with BOTH kicking them off AND keeping their money. But if I read your posts correctly, so do you.

 

Pretty sure a hookah falls under prohibited items. Remember, they dont list every single prohibited item. But a hookah would indeed fall under because it is a FIRE HAZARD. So no, there is a violation of the guest conduct policy.

 

As an avid hookah smoker, I would say you'd have to be a total moron to believe a hookah is an acceptable thing to take on a cruise ship. Because they require coals to smoke. These coals in two types, quick lites which when lit throw off all kinds of sparks or natural which take an incredible amount of heat/fire to light. And if it wasn't a hookah pipe, then it wasn't shisha(like the article claims).

 

I'd say its bad PR to keep their money, but it is likely perfectly legal to do so under the contract.

[wayne_trisha]

There we go attacking security again. They probably make just over poverty level and have to deal with stupid people like the husband on a daily basis. But it's their fault because they're 'overzealous' right?

 

I don't make just over poverty level and I have to deal with pilots :)

 

Was not meant as an attack on security. There is a general fear of the security systems in place in the United States. You even helped portray it. They make just above the poverty line so why should they care how they do their job.

 

I'm pretty sure the contract covers the Captain's decision.

 

Hopefully the contract covers being banned from passage for a non-illegal substnace

[mjldvlks]

Pretty sure a hookah falls under prohibited items. Remember, they dont list every single prohibited item. But a hookah would indeed fall under because it is a FIRE HAZARD. So no, there is a violation of the guest conduct policy.

 

As an avid hookah smoker, I would say you'd have to be a total moron to believe a hookah is an acceptable thing to take on a cruise ship. I'd say its bad PR to keep their money, but it is likely perfectly legal to do so under the contract.

Don't think anybody said they had a hookah.

[ryano]

Pretty sure a hookah falls under prohibited items. Remember, they dont list every single prohibited item. But a hookah would indeed fall under because it is a FIRE HAZARD. So no, there is a violation of the guest conduct policy.

 

As an avid hookah smoker, I would say you'd have to be a total moron to believe a hookah is an acceptable thing to take on a cruise ship. I'd say its bad PR to keep their money, but it is likely perfectly legal to do so under the contract.

 

Thats all fine and dandy but the pipe found was NOT a hookah unless I totally missed something here. :confused:

 

And a regular smoking pipe such as a Dr Grabow is most certainly NOT a prohibited item because I seen three guys out on deck 4 smoking on theirs right in front of security on this same sailing!

[ryano]

Don't think anybody said they had a hookah.

 

Thanks. I was wondering if I missed something here.

[BeagleOne]

Here is a nice, off-topic, nostalgic video with a nice soundtrack to soothe our collective fevered brows. :)

 

http://cnd-cruiseblogger.blogspot.com/2012/04/look-back-at-ss-france-1962-arrival-in.html

[Aquahound]

Paul,

 

Wouldn't you expect the police officers who actually saw it to be as suspicious as you are if there was a possibility this substance was indeed illegal? Yet everything we have heard shows no apparent suspiscion. They apparently returned the stuff to OP's DH. Surely the concelament alone would be enough PC to confiscate it for further testing.

 

You have said several times it was not proven to be tobacco. But it was not proven to be anything else either. DH says it was flavored tobacco. If that is true, (and it seems to be consistent with, or at least not contradicted by, what the port lady and the police report are saying) I don't think that is far from what OP was saying. Still I would have expected her to (a) have known and (b) said something about the false bottomed can. But even if the Cpt deems them to be "high risk" when he cannot point to a specific violation of the guest conduct policy I have a problem with BOTH kicking them off AND keeping their money. But if I read your posts correctly, so do you.

 

Well, most officers are going to err on the side of caution. If they assume to the illegal side and take action without proof, they could be open to civil liability, unlawful seizure, and false arrest.

 

Also, police officers are people. They all have different discretion and morals. I wish I knew exactly what happened and why.

[co2stay]

Not for nothing,but why bother packing all those things and transporting them to Europe........wouldnt it be just as easy to buy some cheap wine glasses and flatware?? And why rumrunners(Im guessing you have to buy the alcohol anyway when you get to your final destination)?

 

We will be training across France and UK, it is not for a destination but for picnicking while traveling. The glasses and flatware are all travel stuff used for this purpose. The rumrunners would be so we aren't traveling with glass.

[wreckem2013]

Don't think anybody said they had a hookah.

 

What do you smoke Halo shisha out of?

 

They said they recovered a pipe.

 

If they recovered what is claimed to be Halo Shisha, the logical conclusion is the pipe found is a hookah pipe. Probably one of the smaller or portable types.

 

Shisha is not smokeable in a traditional tobacco pipe. Or a traditional water bong(what you would smoke pot out of). Shisha is not directly lit or burnt. If it was indeed shisha, the pipe was a hookah. Or the OPs husband lied to Cruise Critic about it being Shisha.

[wayne_trisha]

I once found a camera that wound up getting media attention. When the Associated Press article came out, after interviewing me, it said I went in to the water to investigate what looked like a rotting tomatoe.

 

What? First of all, why? Second, I never said anything remotely close to that, and my story didn't have near the sensational appeal of a story like is.

 

Point is, never believe all that is reported, even from what you think is a trustworthy source. You never know what details are a little off.

 

That was a great story with a great ending!

[johneeo]

Possibly but I don't know... something tells me RCI can take care of themselves, though. *shrug* ;)

 

In the short term.

 

But, for companies to be successful in the long run, they need to serve their customers well.

 

RCI has been getting ripped on a number of customer service isssues, and their reputation has been on the downslide in this area.

 

How can customers book a cruise over a year in advance to get an aft cabin, then be told they lost their cabin because RCI forgot that the cabin numbers changed when the ship was refurbished?

 

The more you read about the RCI customer service, one has to conclude that this organiztion is run but complete total morons.:(

 

And for the record, I have loved sailing on RCI. My previoius three cruises were with RCI, and I am on Oasis in June.

 

But, after that, I will be considering other lines.

[sleepless]

For those questing Paul's theory so much maybe you should read this:

 

Synthetic cannabis is a psychoactive herbal and chemical product that, when consumed, allegedly mimics the effects of cannabis. It is best known by the brand names K2[1] and Spice,[2] both of which have largely become genericized trademarks used to refer to any synthetic cannabis product. (It is also for this reason that synthetic cannabis is often referred to as spice product, due to the latter.) A type of synthetic cannabis sold in Australasia is known as Kronic.

Research on the safety of synthetic cannabis is only now becoming available. Initial studies are focused on the role of synthetic cannabis and psychosis. It seems likely that synthetic cannabis can precipitate psychosis and in some cases it is prolonged. These studies suggest that synthetic cannabinoid intoxication is associated with acute psychosis, worsening of previously stable psychotic disorders, and also may have the ability to trigger a chronic (long-term) psychotic disorder among vulnerable individuals such as those with a family history of mental illness.[3][4]

When synthetic cannabis blends first went on sale in the early 2000s, it was thought that they achieved an effect through a mixture of legal herbs. Laboratory analysis in 2008 showed that this is not the case, and that they in fact contain synthetic cannabinoids that act on the body in a similar way to cannabinoids naturally found in cannabis, such as THC. A large and complex variety of synthetic cannabinoids, most often cannabicyclohexanol, JWH-018, JWH-073, or HU-210, are used in an attempt to avoid the laws that make cannabis illegal, making synthetic cannabis a designer drug. It has been sold under various brand names, online, in head shops, and at some gas stations.

It is often marketed as "herbal incense"; however, some brands market their products as "herbal smoking blends". In either case, the products are usually smoked by users. Although synthetic cannabis does not produce positive results in drug tests for cannabis, it is possible to detect its metabolites in human urine. The synthetic cannabinoids contained in synthetic cannabis products have been made illegal in many European countries. On November 24, 2010, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced it would use emergency powers to ban many synthetic cannabinoids within a month.[5] Prior to the announcement, several US states had already made them illegal under state law. 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.[6][7]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_cannabis

 

 

synthetic cannabis does not produce positive results in drug tests for cannabis,

 

synthetic cannabis does not produce positive results in drug tests for cannabis,

 

synthetic cannabis does not produce positive results in drug tests for cannabis,

 

 

I thought this needs repeating.

[wayne_trisha]

Pretty sure a hookah falls under prohibited items. Remember, they dont list every single prohibited item. But a hookah would indeed fall under because it is a FIRE HAZARD. So no, there is a violation of the guest conduct policy.

 

As an avid hookah smoker, I would say you'd have to be a total moron to believe a hookah is an acceptable thing to take on a cruise ship. Because they require coals to smoke. These coals in two types, quick lites which when lit throw off all kinds of sparks or natural which take an incredible amount of heat/fire to light. And if it wasn't a hookah pipe, then it wasn't shisha(like the article claims).

 

I'd say its bad PR to keep their money, but it is likely perfectly legal to do so under the contract.

 

I am not familiar so forgive me but I don't think a hookah would fit in a faux bottom container, would it? Not the ones I have seen anyways.

[mjldvlks]

What do you smoke Halo shisha out of?

 

They said they recovered a pipe.

 

If they recovered what is claimed to be Halo Shisha, the logical conclusion is the pipe found is a hookah pipe. Probably one of the smaller or portable types.

 

Shisha is not smokeable in a traditional tobacco pipe. Or a traditional water bong(what you would smoke pot out of). Shisha is not directly lit or burnt. If it was indeed shisha, the pipe was a hookah. Or the OPs husband lied to Cruise Critic about it being Shisha.

The pipe was small eough to be in the bottom of the spray can with the stuff. It was described as a "chamber pipe" by the port lady. Even where the RCI lady contradicts the port lady and police report saying the OP and her DH were denied boarding because of an "illegal substance" she says nothing about the pipe being against the rules. It is hard to imagine how this pipe could be a violation as a fire hazard if your average tobacco smoking pipe is not. But I claim no expertise on any sort of pipes.

[mjldvlks]

Well, most officers are going to err on the side of caution. If they assume to the illegal side and take action without proof, they could be open to civil liability, unlawful seizure, and false arrest.

 

Also, police officers are people. They all have different discretion and morals. I wish I knew exactly what happened and why.

So without seeing what they saw, you are assuming these officers were eithr scared of lawsuits or just made a mistake?

[rubrrick]

If the OP has learned anything,I am sure it is NOT to post anymore about the subject,till there is some kind of resolution..

 

Kathy.........the OP is bajathree..........Steve.

 

He is one of us..........a good guy!:D

 

I think that you are mentioning.........the other thread and who started it.....was the OP that is in question.

 

If this is all second hand, I apologize...........as I'm still reading.......and maybe I'm dyslectic, but you all are writing faster than I can read!;)

 

Rick