The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[Aquahound]

Because the direct quote from the Port Authority, and therefore the only people that matter, is this:

 

Port officials agree that the contraband was tobacco and not an illegal substance. (it was actually hookah herb, but again, the PA fully agreed it was NOT illegal) And yes, there most certainly were tests per both RCI and the PA, regardless of what Aquahound says.

 

Wow. You really are one angry girl. Why? This isn't worth getting so upset about.

 

But since you named me, please show me where I said there weren't tests. :confused:

 

What I said was you cannot test for tobacco, nor spice. And as such, they have no way of knowing which it is. That is fact.

 

BTW, I've mentioned suspected spice several times in both threads now. To those who actually know me, that would be what we call a "hint.";)

[Cruising89143]

Suspicious activity is listed as policy in conjunction with a test by RCI that indicated a "controlled substance".

 

I hope that this actually does go to court. Then maybe we will know exactly what happened. RCI is the smart one keeping their mouth shut while the OP came to this board and gave way too much information. The damage is done.

[bigeagle12]

Because the direct quote from the Port Authority, and therefore the only people that matter, is this:

 

Port officials agree that the contraband was tobacco and not an illegal substance. (it was actually hookah herb, but again, the PA fully agreed it was NOT illegal) And yes, there most certainly were tests per both RCI and the PA, regardless of what Aquahound says.

 

I give up .. believe what you would like :eek: ..

[Kristi Williamson]

But things have changed dramatically now. It is now stated that RCI tested the material and those tests show it to be an illegal something or other. Wondering what that illegal something or other was.

 

Certainly RCI drug testing is more thorough and better than that of some port authority law enforcement entity, wouldn't you agree?

 

I can't tell if you're being ironic or not.

 

So, I'll just say that...no, I don't believe RCI has more "testing" equipment that the actual PA who has negated most of RCI's statements and in two different statements flatly say that RCI is bold faced lying.

[Hunwolf]

Out of curiosity, how many pax have RCI or the port folks denied boarding for smuggling of other illegal items/breach of contract items like alcohol?

 

I know that folks use rum runners to sneak booze on which is a direct violation of the contract. Does these folks get the hook too?

[Cruising89143]

Hey Gator she has as many RCCL cruises as CCL

 

I do too but I don't have a whale tail in my sig line!!!!!!;)

[ryano]

I can't tell if you're being ironic or not.

 

So, I'll just say that...no, I don't believe RCI has more "testing" equipment that the actual PA who has negated most of RCI's statements and in two different statements flatly say that RCI is bold faced lying.

 

Honestly, I dont believe for a second that RCI has any testing equipment at all. Not at the port anyway. And how did they test something that was given back to the couple?

 

Too much just doesnt add up here.

[Kristi Williamson]

You mean the same PA that the original OP said was the reason behind all of this? You know, the one that was looking for their "bonus" money for making a bust??:rolleyes:

 

 

I don't know, nor do I care.

 

The facts are all that are relevant and the more facts that come out, the more RCI looks like the one in the wrong. That's really all that's important. It's wrong for them to remove a passenger who didn't do anything other than place a perfectly legal substance in a container that some people don't like. Who cares what people like or think is questionable. If they weren't doing anything, then they weren't. That's really all that matters and I'd think that we, as regular RCI passengers, would all want the RIGHT thing to be done. It wasn't.

 

Stupid isn't against the law. Tobacco isn't against the law. Hookah herb isn't against the law. None of those things broke the contract and frankly, the PA and officers there agree with the passengers based on all the information that we have. That ALONE says a great deal.

[Rockfordcruiser]

Out of curiosity, how many pax have RCI or the port folks denied boarding for smuggling of other illegal items/breach of contract items like alcohol?

 

I know that folks use rum runners to sneak booze on which is a direct violation of the contract. Does these folks get the hook too?

 

If you wait til they are on board ship then take away their goods then they will have to buy their drinks from the ship correct? Captive audience then... Just saying..

[ryano]

 

I know that folks use rum runners to sneak booze on which is a direct violation of the contract. Does these folks get the hook too?

 

No. There are reports earlier in this thread that people have been kicked off for smuggling alcohol and supposedly this board is full of links but I have yet to find the first one.

 

For the most part, RCI does NOT kick people off their ships for smuggling with rumrunners even though rumrunners are a directly violations of their rules..........I have yet to see anything about a faux hairspray can in said rules though lol

[Aquahound]

Honestly, I dont believe for a second that RCI has any testing equipment at all. Not at the port anyway. And how did they test something that was given back to the couple?

 

Too much just doesnt add up here.

 

They do, actually. It's not well publicized, but they do have field test kits. I'm almost certain all cruise lines do. At least, I know the major ones do.

[reallyitsmema]

Sadly, and Im not specifically calling out the previous poster you quoted but thats all this thread has become for the most part. 1000 posts of a bunch of condescending, rude, snide remarks and now even name calling. Its pathetic and sad all the same, really.

 

Healthy debate is good for a forum but most participating in this thread wouldnt know healthy debate if it slapped them in the head.

 

Im really shocked that this has been allowed to go on as long as it has. I dont even recall the original thread being this nasty and it was locked. :confused:

 

Oh well. It really must make some feel good to anonymously bang away on their keyboard and say stuff they would never say to someones face.

The original thread was locked at the request of the OP. She posted towards the end of the thread that she had sent a request and was waiting for a reply.

 

This thread, well, that is a completely different animal.:rolleyes::cool:

[utkikr21]

 

Too much just doesnt add up here.

 

That sentence hits the nail on the head for this entire situation. The original OP's story doesnt add up, RCI's response to them being kicked off ship doesnt add up, and the fact that everyone hear only knows what they know based off one article and what one person who was their has to say doesnt add up. Bottom line is only a handful of people really know what happened and the rest is all speculation.

 

OP tried to get away with something, it didnt work, and RCI did what they thought was best. Unfortunatley for the OP, when they agreed to the cruise contract they gave up their right to sue RCI... At the end of the day they could have prevented this entire thing by thinking twice about trying to conceal something they knew was suspicious looking.

[Rockfordcruiser]

I don't know, nor do I care.

 

The facts are all that are relevant and the more facts that come out, the more RCI looks like the one in the wrong. That's really all that's important. It's wrong for them to remove a passenger who didn't do anything other than place a perfectly legal substance in a container that some people don't like. Who cares what people like or think is questionable. If they weren't doing anything, then they weren't. That's really all that matters and I'd think that we, as regular RCI passengers, would all want the RIGHT thing to be done. It wasn't.

 

Stupid isn't against the law. Tobacco isn't against the law. Hookah herb isn't against the law. None of those things broke the contract and frankly, the PA and officers there agree with the passengers based on all the information that we have. That ALONE says a great deal.

 

Did you by chance read the original post from the OP in question? http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1622345

[Kristi Williamson]

Wow. You really are one angry girl. Why? This isn't worth getting so upset about.

 

But since you named me, please show me where I said there weren't tests. :confused:

 

What I said was you cannot test for tobacco, nor spice. And as such, they have no way of knowing which it is. That is fact.

 

BTW, I've mentioned suspected spice several times in both threads now. To those who actually know me, that would be what we call a "hint.";)

 

That you would direct the "angry" jargon at me is very telling. I'm not angry at all, nor have any of my posts implied that I am. There's certainly a few others that would be more accurate to try on, though.

 

Second, if you'd read my quote, you'd see that someone else mentioned you and I simply said I don't care what you said as you weren't there, nor do you know what happened, regardless of your "expertise". I'm a real estate broker, but if I haven't SEEN the property, my "expertise" is worthless.

 

The PA clearly said they DID test this substance and they called it tobacco and they called it legal. As long as it was legal, it doesn't matter if it was fecal matter. It's inappropriate that they lost their cruise for something that broke no contracts. End of story.

[lidodeckbound]

Sadly, and Im not specifically calling out the previous poster you quoted but thats all this thread has become for the most part. 1000 posts of a bunch of condescending, rude, snide remarks and now even name calling. Its pathetic and sad all the same, really.

 

Healthy debate is good for a forum but most participating in this thread wouldnt know healthy debate if it slapped them in the head.

 

Im really shocked that this has been allowed to go on as long as it has. I dont even recall the original thread being this nasty and it was locked. :confused:

 

Oh well. It really must make some feel good to anonymously bang away on their keyboard and say stuff they would never say to someones face.

I totally agree with you. I was simply reading tonight as I have a RCCL cruise coming up and I come here to make my vacation come sooner. I have nothing against anyone and yes I did not read all now 52 pages of this mess and am sorry I posted to begin with. But I still have a right to post as do all of you. I do not appreciate the Carnival/Royal slander that seems to be the issue for one poster here. I cruise because I love it, no cruise line has anything to do with it. Not that I would currently do Celebrity or Princess just because that is not "me" right now. But I certainly wouldn't judge those who do. (Carnivore/Carny) etc.

 

I hope no one feels like I am "banging away on my keyboard". I just saw the post and responded. Is that not the intent of a message board. Some people just need to relax and take things for what they are. I am sorry I did not read 50 pages. But would the result be any different. I doubt it. And as far as the OP, I guess we will see what happens.

[utkikr21]

I don't know, nor do I care.

 

The facts are all that are relevant and the more facts that come out, the more RCI looks like the one in the wrong. That's really all that's important. It's wrong for them to remove a passenger who didn't do anything other than place a perfectly legal substance in a container that some people don't like. Who cares what people like or think is questionable. If they weren't doing anything, then they weren't. That's really all that matters and I'd think that we, as regular RCI passengers, would all want the RIGHT thing to be done. It wasn't.

 

Stupid isn't against the law. Tobacco isn't against the law. Hookah herb isn't against the law. None of those things broke the contract and frankly, the PA and officers there agree with the passengers based on all the information that we have. That ALONE says a great deal.

 

You dont care that the OP came on here to get everyone behind her by slandering a PA agent saying that she rude and angry because she just "knew" she had found something illegal? Now said PA is coming out with their story that there were no "illegal" contents and everything was up to RCI. And as stated numerous times, it was only determined there was no THC laced in the "tobacco". There is no way to prove what exactly it was...

 

If you open your eyes and realize that original OP knew they did wrong and did have something to hide then maybe you wouldnt be so quick on your judgements.

[kaykels]

Rum Runners are a breach. These people didn't violate any rules. It was a LEGAL substance! It wasn't pot ! We are all familiar with the legal hooka. Just ask Hannah Montana. :)

 

If the substance was questionable, why would they give it back to him???? He also offered to discard it, even though it was proven to be a LEGAL substance. RCCL was wrong! I hope the OP sues them and they get every dime back and then some.

[Goofyisme]

Kinda like booze smugglers, no?

 

Yup booze smugglars are subject to denial of passage at the discretion of the Captain. Just because it is rarely done doesn't say it isn't a tool at the disposal of the Captain.

[utkikr21]

Did you by chance read the original post from the OP in question? http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1622345

 

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess she didnt...:confused:

[Liat]

RCCL was certainly justified in its initial reaction to finding the material. However, there are still questions. Firstly, when it was determined by the port authorities; who presumably know what they are doing in this area; that the tobacco was not an illegal or "controlled" substance, was there stilll time to let the couple back on board, even without it?

Next - what was the "guest conduct policy" which was violated?

If I smoke strong black tobacco in my Sherlock Holmes Merschaum pipe, is this a violation of RCCL's "guest conduct policy"?

And where is the "guest coduct policy" set forth so that prospective passengers may form a reasonable idea of what is or is not permitted? Why woud one believe that smoking a legal substance violates any policy when it does not violate the law?

I would believe that the passengers have not only a strong case for a full refund, but the possibility of a case for damages for humiliation, emotional distress and perhaps some other "damages" an imaginative lawyer [not me - I have been retired for 11 years] can dream up.

[reallyitsmema]

RCCL was certainly justified in its initial reaction to finding the material. However, there are still questions. Firstly, when it was determined by the port authorities; who presumably know what they are doing in this area; that the tobacco was not an illegal or "controlled" substance, was there stilll time to let the couple back on board, even without it?

Next - what was the "guest conduct policy" which was violated?

If I smoke strong black tobacco in my Sherlock Holmes Merschaum pipe, is this a violation of RCCL's "guest conduct policy"?

And where is the "guest coduct policy" set forth so that prospective passengers may form a reasonable idea of what is or is not permitted? Why woud one believe that smoking a legal substance violates any policy when it does not violate the law?

I would believe that the passengers have not only a strong case for a full refund, but the possibility of a case for damages for humiliation, emotional distress and perhaps some other "damages" an imaginative lawyer [not me - I have been retired for 11 years] can dream up.

Guest conduct policy can be found on the cruiselines website.

 

Edit: I found it for you. http://www.royalcaribbean.com/content/en_US/pdf/Guest_Conduct_Policy.pdf

[Kristi Williamson]

I give up .. believe what you would like :eek: ..

 

 

...sigh...

 

I don't "believe" anything. I'm merely quoting the article from the people who were there. That IS relevant. These passengers deserve to be treated with the same respect as anyone else who didn't break the law or the contract. The fact that some people don't like how they brought their hookah herb, tobacco, etc... on board is really irrelevant.

 

The fact that people have openly called the OP stupid and a liar is astounding when the Port Authority is openly AGREEING with her. How is that fair or right? I think it's almost grossly hateful to call her names because you don't like how they packaged something that the PA is openly saying was completely legal. Do you think they'd quote that to a news article if they didn't have the report to prove it?!

[time4u2go]

Why does everyone keep saying it was not illegal .. they only tested for THC .. no test for dozens of other synthetic drugs.

 

Two facts:

 

1. They can't prove it was legal or illegal

2. There is no test to prove it is tobacco

 

Please search and read Aquahound's posts to this thread for explanation from an expert in the field.

 

This doesn't address my other question...why did RCI say the substance was disposed of while PC Police said otherwise?

[Rockfordcruiser]

RCCL was certainly justified in its initial reaction to finding the material. However, there are still questions. Firstly, when it was determined by the port authorities; who presumably know what they are doing in this area; that the tobacco was not an illegal or "controlled" substance, was there stilll time to let the couple back on board, even without it?

Next - what was the "guest conduct policy" which was violated?

If I smoke strong black tobacco in my Sherlock Holmes Merschaum pipe, is this a violation of RCCL's "guest conduct policy"?

And where is the "guest coduct policy" set forth so that prospective passengers may form a reasonable idea of what is or is not permitted? Why woud one believe that smoking a legal substance violates any policy when it does not violate the law?

I would believe that the passengers have not only a strong case for a full refund, but the possibility of a case for damages for humiliation, emotional distress and perhaps some other "damages" an imaginative lawyer [not me - I have been retired for 11 years] can dream up.

 

If you look at the time of the "report" that was posted here. It has a time of 16:48 If I remember correctly. Not sure what time Muster is on this sailing but if the OP in question was not on the ship during Muster I believe there's something about not being able to sail. ???? http://c3270052.r52.cf0.rackcdn.com/freedom-incident-report.jpg