The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[pseudoware]

Its all common sense and logical, unless the OPs Husband lied about it being shisha. You cant smoke shisha without a hookah pipe and charcoal. The OPs husband purposely concealed "shisha and a pipe", if there was no charcoal, why bring it a long? Just to smoke on land and only going to buy charcoal on land? I Doubt a hookah pipe will pass through security in the Caribbean. It most definitely wouldn't in Jamaica.

 

The OPs husband was stupid. He should never have concealed it. He also should have checked first before trying to bring whatever on.

 

And one more thing I will add if it wasn't a hookah pipe and it wasn't a traditional tobacco pipe, then the pipe could have been seen as illegal drug paraphernalia.

 

If this was a "dry run" as some have suggested, the husband could have intended to use the (non hookah) pipe to smoke pot he was planning to buy on one of the islands.

 

If the herb in the can was shisha, that doesn't mean it's not possible for the pipe to be something other than a hookah.

 

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

[tanelicus]

If you are traveling with $10k or more in cash or $10k or more of any other type of monetary instrument(travelers checks, foreign currency, etc) you best be disclosing that on the proper forms or else you will find yourself out of said money if security/customs finds it. It IS a criminal offense to fail to report and knowingly conceal $10k or more in monetary instruments when traveling. Not only is it a criminal offense, all the money is taken by civil forfeiture even if you are never convicted.

 

I was just pointing out that traveling and purposely concealing a certain amount of cash(on your person, in a bag you are carry, doesn't even have to be overt like in a fake can) is in fact illegal... And you can easily smuggle said amount in a fake can the size of a soda can.

 

Your making overreaching assumptions with your post. Of course carrying that amount of cash concealed is illegal. I said assume its $300 and a Rolex watch. Then what?

 

The fact here is tobacco and a pipe are not illegal and are allowed by RCI. So where is the problem?

 

RCI is standing their ground on security issues, and it may very well rue the day for them.

[bigeagle12]

I have an almost blind faith to the police and other such trained authorities. I never said it was legal but that it was not illegal. I beleive if the port canaveral police (who thankfully did not ticket me today for speeding:) ) let the person go, they did not suspect illegal substances.

 

Ok .. it was not proven "not illegal" .. can't be done.

 

The officers knew there were no other tests to prove it illegal as Aquahound also stated.

[wayne_trisha]

If someone decides to hide a clock that resembles a bomb in a secret container in their luggage, with wires and some putty like substance, but it turns out to only be someones alarm clock decorated like a bomb, if that not enough of a "risk" to keep him off the ship??

 

Alarm clocks aren't illegal, right? But making it seem like a live bomb would be enough to not only throw him off the ship, but have him arrested.

 

This guy made it look like he was doing something iillegal. He should suffer the consequences.

 

I'm onboard with the trial run theory. I'd bet his demeanor and actions after the fact had something to do with his "high risk" status.

 

Not quite. a bomb would affect everyone on board as well as thousands maybe million of potential cruisers. A bag of smoking material,. even if it was marijuana only affect the smoker unless they are operating a vessel.

 

So the person did nothing wrong but should suffer the consequences. I really hope the next time you sit down at the bar with a drink you get handcuffed and arrested for DUI just because you might drive later.

[tanelicus]

Once again, wayne_trisha, "Mary" lied by omission. In her 60+ posts on the original thread, she never once mentioned the most important detail about the tobacco and pipe...that they were deliberately concealed in a hidden compartment in a fake hair spray can, and NOT merely in a baggie in a side pocket of her husband's dive bag. As I posted before, the former is a deliberate attempt to hide the items from security, for whatever reason. The latter is simply a way of packing something.

 

Who cares how it was carried on, if tobacco and a pipe are not illegal? It doesn't even matter if she lied to us. What does she owe us? Are you suggesting she and her hubby lied to RCI?

 

Could be but there's nothing about that.

[Pushka]

So the person did nothing wrong but should suffer the consequences. I really hope the next time you sit down at the bar with a drink you get handcuffed and arrested for DUI just because you might drive later.

 

Yes, especially if the car keys are in her purse.

[BeagleOne]

 

Besides, I am not sure that the provision would be held up in court, too vague and overreaching for contract purposes.

 

IDK, I suspect the cruise lines have some pretty experienced contract attorneys writing these things. AND defending them in court if cases get that far.

 

I wonder if there were any security cameras recording the departure hall? THAT might be really popcorn-worthy! :)

[wreckem2013]

Your making overreaching assumptions with your post. Of course carrying that amount of cash concealed is illegal. I said assume its $300 and a Rolex watch. Then what?

 

The fact here is tobacco and a pipe are not illegal and are allowed by RCI. So where is the problem?

 

RCI is standing their ground on security issues, and it may very well rue the day for them.

 

Your first hypo said cash and nothing to do with a rolex.

[tanelicus]

IDK, I suspect the cruise lines have some pretty experienced contract attorneys writing these things. AND defending them in court if cases get that far.

 

I wonder if there were any security cameras recording the departure hall? THAT might be really popcorn-worthy! :)

 

Probaby would help to see if the guy acted "funny" or cooperative.

 

In the end, probaby comes down to a RCI gut call, which I am sure they would probably do again. I have no problem with that. However, sometimes you have to be also willing to pick your battles wisely and decide pragmatically how you are going to wage them.

 

If its a close call, then RCI should probably refund their money totally and apologize for the inconvience however stand their ground on the basis of security for giving them the boot.

[tanelicus]

Your first hypo said cash and nothing to do with a rolex.

 

But you made the cash ten thousand which you know makes the concealed cash illegal.

 

I asked you to assume the amount of money to be only $300 and a Rolex. That's not illegal.

 

You are missing my point.

[wayne_trisha]

I'm DEFINITELY not an RCI cheerleader. 50+ cruises and only 1 was RCI (10 years ago and it was AWFUL).

 

However even if the man in question wasn't trying to see if he could get away w/ a substance in the dummy hair spray can. Even if he just thought "Gee it's a great idea to pull some "tobacco" out of its original container, put it in a baggy and then secret it and a double chamber pipe in a fake hair spray can" then I'd say he showed EXTREMELY poor judgement and IMHO (and probably the captain's) he acted IRRESPONSIBLY.

 

And from the ROYAL CARIBBEAN WEBSITE:

Guests who violate any alcohol policies, (over consume, provide alcohol to people under age 21, demonstrate irresponsible behavior, or attempt to conceal alcoholic items at security and or luggage check points or any other time), may be disembarked or not allowed to board, at their own expense, in accordance with our Guest Conduct Policy.

 

So although not alcohol related (probably) I think he fit the IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR section..... for which the possible response is disembarkation at the Pax expense.

 

 

Today I cut wood without eye protection. Would the captain deem that irresponsible?

 

Tomorrow I might drive around the block without my seatbelt on, should I cancel my next cruise?

[alex12_3]

I knew this made no sense when I read the first thread. When I read the news story today, it all came together.

 

So clearly, many details were left out of the original story. The original OP had to have known that her husband's stuff was packed in a fake hairspray can. Why didn't she disclose this, among some of the other recently-revealed details? I know that if I were in her situation, I wouldn't have ever considered posting about it here. She very carefully trimmed the story down to make the two of them look so innocent, before putting it up here looking for attention and publicity, hoping to put the pressure on RCCL. Now other parties are telling their sides, and it's backfiring.

 

I'm totally in agreement with the idea that this was just a trial run...they wanted to see if the stuff would get through unnoticed. Legal substance or not, irrelevant. I believe, while there were no criminal charges to be brought, the right decision was made to keep them off the boat, knowing that the "trial run" scenario was a clear possibility.

 

And when we're talking about the husband's "pipe," keep in mind there are two different types of pipes we could be talking about. Check out the attached images...I think one would arouse much more suspicion than the other. Which do you think the husband had in his luggage?

 

Whenever I travel by plane, and when I packed for my cruise, I kept in mind that security would be screening everything. If I had any concerns at all that an item might get security's attention, I left it home.

 

Suggestion to the OP of the original thread...next time, take a Caribbean cruise and leave your stuff at home. Walk around the ports and beaches and just wait for the right people to offer you what you want.

[BeagleOne]

Who cares how it was carried on, if tobacco and a pipe are not illegal? It doesn't even matter if she lied to us. What does she owe us? Are you suggesting she and her hubby lied to RCI?

 

Could be but there's nothing about that.

 

Sure it matters that she lied, because she did it on a public forum that is most likely monitored by the cruise line, in an attempt to drum up outrage and sympathy for her story, and quite possibly in the hopes of shaming the cruise line into refunding their fare. She sat back and watched, and frequently replied, while over 1,000 replies rolled in, most sympathetic to her partly-false story, and never once mentioned that she was leaving out the most significant detail.

 

The cruise line obviously cared how things were carried on. The couple or at least the husband attempted to conceal something that aroused security's suspicions. None of us knows what was done or said after the discovery was made. Maybe it was the husband's reaction that led to their not being allowed to reboard.

 

Or maybe the fact that they tried to sneak something on board, like the rum runners, was enough to make them "high risk" in the cruise line's opinion. Just because most cruise lines usually just confiscate the legal-but-sneaked-aboard item, like in the rum runners, doesn't mean that they don't have the option to deny boarding. Whether that's ethically correct, we can argue about forever. But legally, based on the information we have, which is not complete, I think the cruise line was within its rights to deny them boarding. More info may come out that might change my opinion. But right now, I think the cruise line had the right to do what they did.

 

That's why I'd love to see a security video or hear from some uninvolved party, like another passenger, about what happened. I really wonder how the couple reacted to the discovery of their hair spray can and the news that they were being denied boarding.

[wreckem2013]

But you made the cash ten thousand which you know makes the concealed cash illegal.

 

I asked you to assume the amount of money to be only $300 and a Rolex. That's not illegal.

 

You are missing my point.

 

And you have missed my point. A pipe isnt a pipe isnt a pipe.

 

What kind of pipe was it?

 

Was it this?

 

http://www.notsoboringlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/briarpipe.jpg

 

Doesn't appear to be so.

 

Was it this? NOTE: NSFW work, do not follow the following link if you are at work. Your work probably frowns upon you visiting pot websites.

 

NSFW*****http://www.water-bongs-glass-pipes.com/fotocache/middle_h/64-Wizards-pipe.jpg*****NSFW

 

Could have been, but unlikely if he was carrying shisha

 

OR was it this?

 

http://www.hookah-shisha.com/store/pc/catalog/Leila-hooka-parts.jpg

 

The first one is acceptable to bring on a cruise ship. Are the other two? I doubt they are. They are very likely to be prohibited, even if they are not illegal(note #2 is NOT legal to carry in quite a number of states).

[iwannacruznow]

 

I'm totally in agreement with the idea that this was just a trial run...they wanted to see if the stuff would get through unnoticed. Legal substance or not, irrelevant. I believe, while there were no criminal charges to be brought, the right decision was made to keep them off the boat, knowing that the "trial run" scenario was a clear possibility.

 

Are you saying he did the trial run to see if he could get the real stuff on his next cruise?

[tanelicus]

Sure it matters that she lied, because she did it on a public forum that is most likely monitored by the cruise line, in an attempt to drum up outrage and sympathy for her story, and quite possibly in the hopes of shaming the cruise line into refunding their fare. She sat back and watched, and frequently replied, while over 1,000 replies rolled in, most sympathetic to her partly-false story, and never once mentioned that she was leaving out the most significant detail.

 

The cruise line obviously cared how things were carried on. The couple or at least the husband attempted to conceal something that aroused security's suspicions. None of us knows what was done or said after the discovery was made. Maybe it was the husband's reaction that led to their not being allowed to reboard.

 

Or maybe the fact that they tried to sneak something on board, like the rum runners, was enough to make them "high risk" in the cruise line's opinion. Just because most cruise lines usually just confiscate the legal-but-sneaked-aboard item, like in the rum runners, doesn't mean that they don't have the option to deny boarding. Whether that's ethically correct, we can argue about forever. But legally, based on the information we have, which is not complete, I think the cruise line was within its rights to deny them boarding. More info may come out that might change my opinion. But right now, I think the cruise line had the right to do what they did.

 

That's why I'd love to see a security video or hear from some uninvolved party, like another passenger, about what happened. I really wonder how the couple reacted to the discovery of their hair spray can and the news that they were being denied boarding.

 

I agree with you for the most part by the way. RCI does give themselves the out when it comes to sneaking booze on board.

 

To kind of counter that however, tobacco is not booze. So what did they smuggle on board the ship?

 

The part I keep coming back to with this whole thing is that the cops came and said everything checked out, including the way they acted.

 

I will take actual trained police officer over a private entities security staff any day.

 

I think the out that RCI gives themselves with this one, is that they can deny people boarding if they for any reason determine that the person is a security threat.

 

Remember they are a private company. They can discriminate (not in the racial term of course).

[wayne_trisha]

Once again, wayne_trisha, "Mary" lied by omission. In her 60+ posts on the original thread, she never once mentioned the most important detail about the tobacco and pipe...that they were deliberately concealed in a hidden compartment in a fake hair spray can, and NOT merely in a baggie in a side pocket of her husband's dive bag. As I posted before, the former is a deliberate attempt to hide the items from security, for whatever reason. The latter is simply a way of packing something.

 

And you know she knew how? We all make assumptions. I assume she didn't know how it was packaged in the dive bag and you assume she lied by omitting the facts.

 

ISo many posts later but I think it was something about her husband does not smoke much or not a regular smoker. Maybe he was not trying to hide it from security but instead from his wife? But on the other hand, she did not seem surprised security found his tobacco. See, I just need more beer to solve this!

[tanelicus]

And you have missed my point. A pipe isnt a pipe isnt a pipe.

 

What kind of pipe was it?

 

Was it this?

 

http://www.notsoboringlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/briarpipe.jpg

 

Doesn't appear to be so.

 

Was it this? NOTE: NSFW work, do not follow the following link if you are at work. Your work probably frowns upon you visiting pot websites.

 

NSFW*****http://www.water-bongs-glass-pipes.com/fotocache/middle_h/64-Wizards-pipe.jpg*****NSFW

 

Could have been, but unlikely if he was carrying shisha

 

OR was it this?

 

http://www.hookah-shisha.com/store/pc/catalog/Leila-hooka-parts.jpg

 

The first one is acceptable to bring on a cruise ship. Are the other two? I doubt they are. They are very likely to be prohibited, even if they are not illegal(note #2 is NOT legal to carry in quite a number of states).

 

and they determined it was not paraphanilia. Cops call empy cigarrette rolling paper and baggies paraphanilia if it falls into place.

 

To me, it says a great deal that the pipe passed muster with the real authories in this case. Police officers have a pretty sensitive threshold with this stuff.

[wayne_trisha]

If this was a "dry run" as some have suggested, the husband could have intended to use the (non hookah) pipe to smoke pot he was planning to buy on one of the islands.

 

If the herb in the can was shisha, that doesn't mean it's not possible for the pipe to be something other than a hookah.

 

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

 

He might have wanted to smoke coconut husks. He might have also wanted to smoke completely legal tobacco. THe potential for what he might have wanted to smoke is limited only by your mind.

[wayne_trisha]

Ok .. it was not proven "not illegal" .. can't be done.

 

The officers knew there were no other tests to prove it illegal as Aquahound also stated.

 

There are no other field tests. I'm quite sure a competent lab could prove exactly what it was.

[wreckem2013]

and they determined it was not paraphanilia. Cops call empy cigarrette rolling paper and baggies paraphanilia if it falls into place.

 

To me, it says a great deal that the pipe passed muster with the real authories in this case. Police officers have a pretty sensitive threshold with this stuff.

 

In this case it doesn't matter what the police say. Illegality doesnt matter. Prohibited items are prohibited items.

 

A pot pipe(#2) is most certainly going to be a prohibited item, on ANY cruise line, even if it isn't illegal in the jurisdiction. Even if it wasn't used for smoking pot.

 

My gut feeling is a hookah pipe is also prohibited item because it would easily be deemed a fire hazard. They ban irons and many other things. Why would a device that requires lit charcoal be allowed on?

 

So again, I say a pipe isn't a pipe isn't a pipe.

[GriffinAlexander]

I don't get the whole "trial run" thing. These folks were going on one cruise, what were they trying for? Next year?

 

I do see some key differences in facts between what was posted by the OP on the original thread and what's come out in this other article. For starters, there's a big difference between regular pipe tobacco or roll-your-own tobacco and hookah tobacco, which is comparable in texture to something in between the dough in a greek dessert. It's sticky and 'flavored', usually some fruit flavor. I've never heard that it can be smoked in a regular pipe either. And why would someone want to transport it in any container than the one it comes in, to preserve it's moisture? A false bottom of a hair spray can, at that. That's a little more hidden than "in my husband's diving bag" for sure.

 

If I were to make an hypothesis about these 'facts' assuming what we've learned are facts, also take as facts that the 'tobacco' tested negative (3 or 4x) and was given back to the OP of the original thread, then I would surmise that:

 

Perhaps, someone without a hookahwith them, even a small one for this cruise packed away, had developed a strong craving for hookah tobacco, and such a desire that they felt they must try to smoke it in a non-traditional way through a regular pipe made for dry tobacco which would potentially clog within a few minutes of the first puff; or

 

Someone may have had another reason to bring that pipe with them, and had yet another undiscovered substance hidden away in a crack or crevice somewhere, and the hookah tobacco was there to throw any potential discovery off. Although it would have still been more simple to leave the hookah tobacco out with the pipe where it could be seen plainly. There was no need at all to hide either of these things; unless

 

Someone actually had a synthetic form of something which it did not test positive 3-4 x for, and which the cops didn't realize was a synthetic form of whatever it was a synthetic form of, and which may or may not have been legal in both the state they departed from and the state they embarked on their ship in; but

 

Regardless (no, irregardless is not a word that should ever be used, but that's another post for another time) I don't see that any guest policy was actually violated, unless they actually did have something contraband hidden somewhere which wasn't discovered. Since there was nothing discovered, that point is moot, and merely hiding ones hookah tobacco and pipe, ostensibly because one may like their cherry flavored hookah fix when they are on vacation and doesn't want security to steal it from their bag) isn't a violation, it's merely keeping something that's valuable to oneself well-(or not so well) hidden from those who may be tempted to indulge in the wonderful tastes of other peoples' cherry flavored hookah tobacco.

 

it's also unreasonable to expect that, if no unlawful contraband was found and these people had boarded, offered to discard the offending material, and been denied, that they would be found in violation of a guest conduct policy because they became visibly upset. It is unreasonable to expect them not to become visibly upset, even to become indignant. If they were indeed hiding undiscovered contraband, they would have been prudent to quietly gather up their belongings and get the hell out of dodge before the cops found a reason to perform a personal search.

 

If I were the cruise line's managing director, or Senior VP of Customer Service, or whomever is the responsible party that will inevitably make the decision regarding the final outcome of this I would consider only whether these people violated any code of conduct or whether it's something the line is hiding behind. I would also consider whether I want these people to cruise my line again. And whether there was anything not disclosed herein (on cruise critic's threads) which might be different. Sometimes one must lose the battle to win the war. Giving this couple back their money plus the expenses they were out, plus some extra for losing their week would do a lot. On top of that, if they want their patronage, give them a free cruise, if not, buy them one on another line, and very politely state that they are persona non grata (confidentially), but we offer up this parting gift for you to enjoy in appreciation of the mixup (for which they won't accept responsibility). It won't make a dent in RCCL's bottom line to give fair restitution to the couple involved, and I think that their loss of vacation week should at least get them 2 weeks pay apiece. The positive that this would turn into for both sides would be amazing. The couple would get back all of the money they lost on the cruise, plus enough extra to keep them smiling and another cruise - heck, now that I think on it, the line should just put them into a suite. The cruise line, on the other hand, loses a drop in the bucket financially, they'll potentially come out ahead on that end because they can write it all off and they'll gain a ton of excellent press for it. They'll have either gotten rid of this couple forever or made them into loyal customers. Oh yeah, nothing changes a disgruntled passengers mind faster than a real resolution, and a cruise line giving them a package like that would do the trick IMHO. People will look at the cruise line and say "at least they admitted their mistake and made good to that couple". The cruise line will have the added benefit of less attempts at passengers attempting to sneak contraband on board because of the press from this, even if it doesn't go further than cruise critic.

 

Sorry for the long post, but I read like 60-something pages of the original thread, then this article and then a bunch of the responses. I think everything I've mentioned is common sense. I just don't quite understand the dry run thing. These people, even if one were to assume they were the james bond and DW of the smoking substance smuggling world, were on a vacation which they won't do again for a year probably, and I think they were going to an island. All those islands are flush with any of those substances discussed, and it's probably very easy to get. I know on our cruise, at one island there was an islander shouting out to the cruise ship passengers that he is "Dr. Feelgood". So I don't understand what the dry run could be for. They aren't smuggling small quantities of weed or anything else to an island where it's probably more likely to be the other way around.

 

 

Please remember, I've mentioned a bunch of hypothetical situations here. I don't know these people, have no interest in either side, although I hate to see anyone wronged. I'm not accusing the OP of the original thread nor RCCL or any wrong doing, just coming to common sense conclusions based on hypothetical situations pertaining to what we have gleaned from the two threads.

[BeagleOne]

 

I will take actual trained police officer over a private entities security staff any day.

 

I think the out that RCI gives themselves with this one, is that they can deny people boarding if they for any reason determine that the person is a security threat.

 

Remember they are a private company. They can discriminate (not in the racial term of course).

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I bet what this will come down to is that the concealed items, while legal, raised the security staff's suspicions of a "dry run", and automatically made the husband "high risk" in the cruise line's opinion...whatever his intentions really were.

 

I bet if he really had just put the stuff in a baggie in a pocket of his dive bag (as his wife claimed in the original thread), or if the wife's jewelry had been in the hidden compartment, there'd have been no problem.

 

wayne_trisha, I know she knew about the fake hair spray can when she started the original CC thread because it was AFTER THE INCIDENT HAD OCCURRED!!! I don't know whether the wife knew about the fake hair spray can before it was discovered by security. But she DEFINITELY knew about it when she started posting about the incident on CC. And she, conveniently for her side of the story, never once mentioned it.

[wayne_trisha]

I knew this made no sense when I read the first thread. When I read the news story today, it all came together.

 

So clearly, many details were left out of the original story. The original OP had to have known that her husband's stuff was packed in a fake hairspray can. Why didn't she disclose this, among some of the other recently-revealed details? I know that if I were in her situation, I wouldn't have ever considered posting about it here. She very carefully trimmed the story down to make the two of them look so innocent, before putting it up here looking for attention and publicity, hoping to put the pressure on RCCL. Now other parties are telling their sides, and it's backfiring.

 

I'm totally in agreement with the idea that this was just a trial run...they wanted to see if the stuff would get through unnoticed. Legal substance or not, irrelevant. I believe, while there were no criminal charges to be brought, the right decision was made to keep them off the boat, knowing that the "trial run" scenario was a clear possibility.

 

And when we're talking about the husband's "pipe," keep in mind there are two different types of pipes we could be talking about. Check out the attached images...I think one would arouse much more suspicion than the other. Which do you think the husband had in his luggage?

 

Whenever I travel by plane, and when I packed for my cruise, I kept in mind that security would be screening everything. If I had any concerns at all that an item might get security's attention, I left it home.

 

Suggestion to the OP of the original thread...next time, take a Caribbean cruise and leave your stuff at home. Walk around the ports and beaches and just wait for the right people to offer you what you want.

 

So many details? I can think of one. the false bottom can. can you a name SO MANY MORE?

 

I would have to surmise from you EXPERT opionion you are an extremely frequest drug user since you know so much about pipes. Are you physic, have inside knowledge, or experience as an extensive drug user to know what the pipe looked like ?

 

Why did the OP HAVE to know where her husband's tobacco was packed? My wife and I pack separately and BELIEVE ME, she never knows where the rumrunners are.

 

I guess you are saying that you leave your drug equipment at home and advise the couple who missed out on their cruise to do the same. Good advice.

[tanelicus]

In this case it doesn't matter what the police say. Illegality doesnt matter. Prohibited items are prohibited items.

 

A pot pipe is most certainly going to be a prohibited item, even if it isn't illegal in whatever jurisdiction. Even if it wasn't used for smoking pot.

 

My gut feeling a hookah pipe is also prohibited item because it would easily be deemed a fire hazard. They ban irons. Why would a device that needs charcoal to use be allowed on?

 

Then as I have said before, it becomes a contractual issue. The attorneys can argue about whetherthis was a reasonable course of action or not under the terms of the contract.

 

I have always maintained that RCI has the security issue on their side.

 

The police might aid the party involved in determining whether the pipe is reasonable or not.

 

I think in the post 911 age and drug war, sneaking anything anywhere always carries a risk of something like this happening, which should never surprise anybody when it does.

 

With that said, regardless of RCI being legally in the right, don't be surprised if this sucker isn't settled sooner than later. I would imagine RCI would find it to make sense to just reimburse them the money.

 

I think the people actually deserve their money back, they didn't get the benefit of their cruise, and it actually sounds like it was a full cruise so not sure RCI lost money on this. Don't see why they just didn't cough it up right away.