The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[PhoenixCruiser]

Can we chat about how their names quickly changed today on the CC article :confused:

 

Perhaps more inaccurate information from the two cruisers and once again more lies :eek:

 

###

[tanelicus]

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.

 

the OP were seeing if they could get stuff they purchased in Jamaica or St. Thomas (or wherever) on board when they got to the island.

 

In my opinion, I think its a stretch.

 

From a hypothetical standpoint, the tobacco could possible be used as a mixer for the pot, so as to cover up the smell.

 

They were probably trying to have some "fun", but I am not sure RCI was at the point where they could make such assumptions.

[Pushka]

Can we chat about how their names quickly changed today on the CC article :confused:

 

Perhaps more inaccurate information from the two cruisers and once again more lies :eek:

 

###

 

And more jumping to conclusions from others :eek:

[GriffinAlexander]

Good thing you are not a judge or in law enforcement!

 

I'm with you on this one. That post made no sense.::: "Plain legal tobacco is one thing but flavored legal tobacco for a hookah is another"

 

I wonder if that poster realizes that if someone wanted to purchase something on an island they'd be able to also purchase something to smoke what they purchased it in.

[PhoenixCruiser]

And more jumping to conclusions from others :eek:

 

I'm guessing that you were not able to read the original story that was posted earlier today BEFORE it was edited :confused:

 

###

[runnerandme]

My lawyer once advised me that there is no free lunch. I wanted to complain about something that I felt was a true injustice to my character, during a deposition. He reminded me to say as little as possible, because the facts of the case were on my side. Don't confuse the issue with things that may or may not be important to winning the case.

 

 

I so wanted to vent, rant, etc. I wanted everyone to know that I was the injured party. When in fact I may have said something to make the other side not want to settle, or back down. If this couple had not gone public with this, Royal may not have felt the need to defend it's position and settled this with little fanfare.

[tanelicus]

My lawyer once advised me that there is no free lunch. I wanted to complain about something that I felt was a true injustice to my character, during a deposition. He reminded me to say as little as possible, because the facts of the case were on my side. Don't confuse the issue with things that may or may not be important to winning the case.

 

 

I so wanted to vent, rant, etc. I wanted everyone to know that I was the injured party. When in fact I may have said something to make the other side not want to settle, or back down. If this couple had not gone public with this, Royal may not have felt the need to defend it's position and settled this with little fanfare.

 

RCI is now in the position where they have to fend off future similar legal issues.

 

With that said, RCI should quietly make this go away - lol.

[PhoenixCruiser]

My lawyer once advised me that there is no free lunch. I wanted to complain about something that I felt was a true injustice to my character, during a deposition. He reminded me to say as little as possible, because the facts of the case were on my side. Don't confuse the issue with things that may or may not be important to winning the case.

 

 

I so wanted to vent, rant, etc. I wanted everyone to know that I was the injured party. When in fact I may have said something to make the other side not want to settle, or back down. If this couple had not gone public with this, Royal may not have felt the need to defend it's position and settled this with little fanfare.

 

You mean by giving Cruise Critic their wrong names until they realized that CC would actually do some research and find out their correct names :eek:

 

###

[tanelicus]

My lawyer once advised me that there is no free lunch. I wanted to complain about something that I felt was a true injustice to my character, during a deposition. He reminded me to say as little as possible, because the facts of the case were on my side. Don't confuse the issue with things that may or may not be important to winning the case.

 

 

I so wanted to vent, rant, etc. I wanted everyone to know that I was the injured party. When in fact I may have said something to make the other side not want to settle, or back down. If this couple had not gone public with this, Royal may not have felt the need to defend it's position and settled this with little fanfare.

 

There's no such thing as a free lunch. If its free, somebody else is paying for it.

[Pushka]

I'm guessing that you were not able to read the original story that was posted earlier today BEFORE it was edited :confused:

 

###

 

I did read it several hours ago. :)

[Jsim2011]

I haven't read through all of the thread yet, just the first 6 or 7 pages so far, but it seems that a lot of people are missing the point.

 

This is not about how you pack things, this isn't about someone being penalised for making a mistake.

 

This is someone that was testing the system to see if the tobbaco would be detected.

 

I know there are going to be people say innocent until proven guilty, but people, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's duck.

[GriffinAlexander]

I have some sympathy for Hager BUT the crucial detail that we have all jumped on is hiding the tobacco and pipe in a hairspray can. Becci, I usually agree with you but comparing it to hiding jewelry is a reach. Hiding jewelry is to keep it from being stolen, hiding tobacco leaves and a pipe is to imply there is something wrong with them. I would think anyone who smokes loose leaves and travels knows that being open with them is a lot easier than trying to be deceptive.

 

Perception is what sealed the case on this. Unfortunately, his actions were the catalyst for the entire debacle and his actions had consequences. I do think Royal should refund them their cruise fare but I don't feel they are owed any damages. I understand why Royal acted the way they did - concealing it made it seem it was illegal. Sadly, Hager's hubby needs to take responsibility for screwing this up and if she knew he was hiding it in a fake bottom of a fake hairspray can, she too bears some of the blame. Like I said, I have some sympathy but ultimately they set themselves up and are not innocent victims.

 

That was an excellent post amigo!

[tanelicus]

I haven't read through all of the thread yet, just the first 6 or 7 pages so far, but it seems that a lot of people are missing the point.

 

This is not about how you pack things, this isn't about someone being penalised for making a mistake.

 

This is someone that was testing the system to see if the tobbaco would be detected.

 

I know there are going to be people say innocent until proven guilty, but people, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's duck.

 

Seems like a hypothesis or assumption. The only truth there is in this situation is the person had tobacco and a pipe. Everything else is a guessing game.

 

I for one don't think its waddling like a duck just yet. The key is RCI has the contractual ability, as well as being a private company, to say that they think it was a duck. What they believe is the only thing that matters. Thats the real point.

[GriffinAlexander]

Remember this post on the original thread??

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=33559086&postcount=1056

Think we have our answer. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

Now that we have finally heard both sides of the story, it makes more sense why they did not get on board but again all it took was "common sense" to figure it out. ;) Interesting that the OP left out abou the can with hidden compartment. I guess she did not want to give us ALL the facts.

 

I kept mentioning in my previous posts that I did not understand the whole "testing the waters" thing. Finally it's sunk in.

[alex12_3]

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.

 

The false-bottom can is obviously the big one. She also left out a few details that she revealed, but not till a bit later. For example, originally they were kicked off because of the tobacco. But then, they were kicked off because the captain deemed the husband "high risk." And what are you going to do with hookah tobacco, and a pipe? Not much. A little different than the pipe tobacco you would expect to accompany a tobacco pipe.

 

I don't know what the pipe looked like. Read again. The point is that neither you, I, nor anyone else here knows what it was. So nobody should be assuming that it was a wooden tobacco smoking pipe. (I would bet that it was a glass piece...and it was probably cleaned, very thoroughly, before being packed away.)

 

She HAD to have known about the false-bottomed can because she and her husband left the ship together to be questioned by security and police about the can, and what was in it. I never said she knew about it before this moment. But by the time she authored the original post of the original thread, she knew.

 

I don't own any drug paraphernalia, so that particular stage of packing is pretty easy for me. Regardless, I would in fact advise everybody to leave their "drug equipment" at home if they and their luggage will be passing through some sort of screening.

 

Bringing those items in that way was just plain stupid, nothing more. And while the wife may or may not have known what was going on while they were packing, or when they first got on the ship, she knew the full story by the time she started that thread. Why edit the story like that?

[Pushka]

I haven't read through all of the thread yet, just the first 6 or 7 pages so far, but it seems that a lot of people are missing the point.

 

This is not about how you pack things, this isn't about someone being penalised for making a mistake.

 

This is someone that was testing the system to see if the tobbaco would be detected.

 

I know there are going to be people say innocent until proven guilty, but people, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's duck.

 

Thank goodness for our legal systems then. Because all that seems to be confirmed so far is that the material did not test positive for THC. Which makes it what kind of duck? At the moment, it is exactly the way this was packed that seems to some to be evidence of some crime. So not sure who has missed the point here.

[Langley Cruisers]

Remember this post on the original thread??

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=33559086&postcount=1056

Think we have our answer.

 

Interesting, thank you.

[Pushka]

Interesting, thank you.

 

Oh please, not that presumption again. Surely your legal system is more sophisticated than to convict or prejudice someone on what they might be presumed to do?

 

It seems we have two lines of thought for the conviction stance.

 

1. The stuff they found was not tested as positive for THC but was in fact artificial THC that does not test positive. Ergo, they were trying to smuggle in illegal drugs.

2. The stuff they found was in fact tobacco and its placement was used as a test to see if they could get away with doing something illegal at a later time. Ergo, they had done nothing illegal at the time of boarding.

So, which is it?

[sail2sea]

Remember this post on the original thread??

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=33559086&postcount=1056

Think we have our answer. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

Now that we have finally heard both sides of the story, it makes more sense why they did not get on board but again all it took was "common sense" to figure it out. ;) Interesting that the OP left out abou the can with hidden compartment. I guess she did not want to give us ALL the facts.

 

Hmm, this actually makes sense.

 

Still at this point Royal should just refund them and wash their hands off them.

[Jsim2011]

Because all that seems to be confirmed so far is that the material did not test positive for THC. Which makes it what kind of duck? At the moment, it is exactly the way this was packed that seems to some to be evidence of some crime. So not sure who has missed the point here.

 

Why do you think it was packed that way?

 

The reason they give makes no sense, he said it was packed in the hidden compartment because he was oncerned it could be mistaken for an illegal substance. That is exactly the reason that any reasonable person would not try to hide/disguise something.

 

What he did was something that drug smugglers do - therefore he was considered high risk.

 

He was prevented from sailing because he was considered high risk, he was considered high risk because of his actions.

 

ETA: Why did the original poster omit this fact? Probably because concealing the tobacco in a hidden comparment is not the same as having tobacco in adive bag.

[johneeo]

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.

:)

 

And they are licking their chops about the legal fees they will be able to charge on this one.

 

Cha - ching!

[johneeo]

 

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.

 

OK, you can be in complete agreement, and you could possibly be wrong.

 

Can you not see that punishing someone for what you "think they might do" is totally wrong and unacceptable.

 

I am the Captain, I see that you brought cash on board. Hey, you could possibly buy drugs in a port and bring them on the ship. Hey, it is a POSSIBILITY, is it not?

 

Therefore, I throw you off the ship. Possible, huh?

[johneeo]

I think everything I've mentioned is common sense.

 

Well, when it comes to common sense, a lot that is lacking in this thread.

 

As you stated, it is preoposterous that some folks are adamant that this could have been a trial run and that they could possibly have been planning to use the can to smuggle drugs. And even if it is proven factually that it was in fact a trial run and they had intent to someday hatch a plan to smuggle drugs, I do not believe that this could result as a violation of any law.

 

Common sense? We shall have none of that here, and we shall have none of that with RCI customer service and management teams. The more you read about RCI and they way they run their organization has to make one conclude they are run by a bunch of incompetent blithering idiots.

[ausofte]

I really hope someone has made the point that innocent until proven guilty, if it exists at all, exists only in the US justice system. RCI ships are not part of that system. They're a private enterprise with very broad policies allowing the captain to deny admission pretty easily. What's that saying parents tell kids who make this argument? This family is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship and I'm the dictator? Well, a cruise is the same way, with the captain as the dictator.

 

Fact is, the captain made a judgment call based on the totality of the circumstances: he had drug paraphernalia, that was bought brand new (why not use his existing pipe? would it have tested positive for THC?), he was using a common method of concealing drugs to try to get it on board instead of having it out in the open, they're going to islands where attempts to smuggle drugs back on board is rampant, it's a family cruiseline, the guy probably became defensive when confronted, etc etc etc. It was reasonable.

[B-52]

Bottom line....a cruise ship (staff) can do just about anything they want.

If they don't want you on their ship...you're not going and there is nothing much you can do about it but kick and fuss...