CBD and cruising

[Aquahound]

3 hours ago, missalexandra said:

 

But I view getting around rules that are arbitrary or designed strictly to allow a company to extract more money from me almost a point of honor.

 

 

Your long post makes it sound as though cruise lines ban THC products by choice.  Perhaps I'm misreading your post but if that's what you're saying, it's not at all accurate.  It's banned on cruise lines because it is still a federal crime to possess it.  

[missalexandra]

Legality varies between jurisdictions. The cruise lines ban it because that is the easy, zero risk thing for them to do.

 

[Aquahound]

1 hour ago, missalexandra said:

 The cruise lines ban it because that is the easy, zero risk thing for them to do.

 

Sorry, but you're wrong. 

[missalexandra]

3 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

Sorry, but you're wrong. 

No, I am not wrong. You do not understand either what I am saying or the practical reality of this situation. The laws on specific substances are many and varied. They vary between states and between countries. The practical reality of what is actually enforced is even more nuanced. Trying to set more lenient policies that consider all those permutations would be impractical. That is why the cruise lines do not do it. They care only about what makes them the most money and keeps them in the good graces of all the countries they do business with. They know perfectly well that almost no jurisdictions really care about CBD capsules, but stating openly that they are allowed can only cause grief with no profit.

[Aquahound]

1 minute ago, missalexandra said:

No, I am not wrong. You do not understand either what I am saying or the practical reality of this situation. The laws on specific substances are many and varied. They vary between states and between countries. The practical reality of what is actually enforced is even more nuanced. Trying to set more lenient policies that consider all those permutations would be impractical. That is why the cruise lines do not do it. They care only about what makes them the most money and keeps them in the good graces of all the countries they do business with. They know perfectly well that almost no jurisdictions really care about CBD capsules, but stating openly that they are allowed can only cause grief with no profit.

 

I understand there is much confusion about CBD capsules but you went on to ref MJ and other THC products.  It does not matter if those were legal in all 50 states.  The fact it's still federally illegal makes it illegal to possess on cruise ships, and when crossing state lines.  Period.  The cruise lines do not have the option of allowing it.  Zero Tolerance is strictly enforced on ships.   

[missalexandra]

Just now, Aquahound said:

 

I understand there is much confusion about CBD capsules but you went on to ref MJ and other THC products.  It does not matter if those were legal in all 50 states.  The fact it's still federally illegal makes it illegal to possess on cruise ships, and when crossing state lines.  Period.  The cruise lines do not have the option of allowing it.  Zero Tolerance is strictly enforced on ships.   

You are wrong again. What is illegal depends on where the ship is docked. You are, I assume, aware that there are countries other than the United States? They have their own laws and different things are legal in different places. 

 

Zero tolerance is NOT "strictly enforced" on all ships, all the time. I have seen a fair amount of marijuana used on ships, especially on charter cruises. I know many, many people who carry CBD, edibles and marijuana on ships routinely. Including someone who has been my roommate on cruises and was not as careful as should be the case. If there were "zero tolerance" on those cruises the steward would have reported it. I have never seen a drug dog on or near a cruise ship. I am sure this does indeed happen sometimes, but the situation is a long way from "zero tolerance."

[Aquahound]

26 minutes ago, missalexandra said:

You are wrong again. What is illegal depends on where the ship is docked. You are, I assume, aware that there are countries other than the United States? They have their own laws and different things are legal in different places. 

 

Zero tolerance is NOT "strictly enforced" on all ships, all the time. I have seen a fair amount of marijuana used on ships, especially on charter cruises. I know many, many people who carry CBD, edibles and marijuana on ships routinely. Including someone who has been my roommate on cruises and was not as careful as should be the case. If there were "zero tolerance" on those cruises the steward would have reported it. I have never seen a drug dog on or near a cruise ship. I am sure this does indeed happen sometimes, but the situation is a long way from "zero tolerance."

 

I'm starting to get the impression you are set in your opinions and facts don't matter.  Oh well; I'll try anyways.  First, in the States, it makes no difference if it is legal in the state where the ship is docked.  Zero whatsoever.  What matters is that it's illegal federally.  Period. 

 

Next, internationally.  In order for THC to be legal on board, it must be legal in the country of the ship's flag, and all countries on the ship's itinerary. 

 

Three.  Zero Tolerance.  Yes, it does exist.  Dogs do exist.  Do people who stupidly take marijuana on board also exist? Yep.  Do many get away with it? Yep.  But that does not mean it isn't heavily enforced.  And room attendants are notorious for not reporting things because it means a hit to their pocketbook.  That's just common sense. 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Aquahound

[missalexandra]

5 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

 

I'm starting to get the impression you are set in your opinions and facts don't matter.  Oh well; I'll try anyways.  First, in the States, it makes no difference if it is legal in the state where the ship is docked.  Zero whatsoever.  What matters is that it's illegal federally.  Period. 

 

Next, internationally.  In order for THC to be legal on board, it must be legal in the country of the ship's flag, and all countries on the ship's itinerary. 

 

Three.  Zero Tolerance.  Yes, it does exist.  Dogs do exist.  Do people who stupidly take marijuana on board also exist? Yep.  Do many get away with it? Yep.  But that does not mean it isn't heavily enforced.  And room attendants are notorious for not reporting things because it means a hit to their pocketbook.  That's just common sense. 

Federal law matters for the convenience of the cruise line. State law is what determines if an individual will be harassed.

 

If the laws of the country where the ship is flagged was the controlling question, then US law would be irrelevant. What matters is where a ship is currently docked, not where it is registered. Do you seriously think foreign ships are not subject to US law when they are docked in New Jersey or California? A cruise line has to set policies that keep them out of trouble with all the jurisdictions they deal with. 

 

If I have seen no enforcement on any cruise and stewards are not punished for failing to report guests, then the real policy is not "zero tolerance." THAT is common sense. The stated policy may be "zero tolerance," but the REAL policy is "do the minimum amount required to mollify authorities and keep disasters from occurring while bothering as few guests as possible." If believing that people will be punished for using substances you disapprove of makes you warm inside, don't let me interfere with your contentment.

[Cruzaholic41]

9 minutes ago, missalexandra said:

Federal law matters for the convenience of the cruise line. State law is what determines if an individual will be harassed.

 

If the laws of the country where the ship is flagged was the controlling question, then US law would be irrelevant. What matters is where a ship is currently docked, not where it is registered. Do you seriously think foreign ships are not subject to US law when they are docked in New Jersey or California? A cruise line has to set policies that keep them out of trouble with all the jurisdictions they deal with. 

 

If I have seen no enforcement on any cruise and stewards are not punished for failing to report guests, then the real policy is not "zero tolerance." THAT is common sense. The stated policy may be "zero tolerance," but the REAL policy is "do the minimum amount required to mollify authorities and keep disasters from occurring while bothering as few guests as possible." If believing that people will be punished for using substances you disapprove of makes you warm inside, don't let me interfere with your contentment.

You’re arguing with a CG investigator who obviously knows the law much better than you. He is right - the fact it’s illegal at the federal level is what makes it illegal on board. Oh, and I’m a retired Customs agent, so I also know the law quite well. 

[missalexandra]

1 minute ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

You’re arguing with a CG investigator who obviously knows the law much better than you. He is right - the fact it’s illegal at the federal level is what makes it illegal on board. Oh, and I’m a retired Customs agent, so I also know the law quite well. 

What makes something "illegal" on board a ship is the law where it is docked at that moment.  You can use any drug you want in international waters. In the US, cruise ships go by federal law as far as official policies because the cruise line wants to make all authorities happy and does not want to be involved in a state/federal controversy.

 

As far as reality, federal law is relevant if you are passing through customs or airport security, or if you are a business large enough for federal authorities to care about you. Otherwise, state law determines whether the police will bother you because they work for state and local governments, not the federal government. Whether or not they will be arrested is what individuals care about and that is mostly a function of state and local law.

 

It is not certain what would happen if the clash between state and federal marijuana laws were litigated. It is in almost everyone's interest not to litigate it and so I doubt it will happen before marijuana is legalized nationally, which it almost certainly will be in my lifetime. It will take just a little longer for the prohibition states to realize how much revenue they are losing and for older politicians to be replaced. Support for legalization is overwhelming among younger people.

 

I'm a journalist and have written about this issue. I know the law quite well. I certainly know it better than someone who thinks where a ship is flagged is the controlling question for cases of drug possession. If I have Florida license plates, smoking marijuana in my (stationary) car is still legal in Seattle. And having Colorado plates does not make it legal in Georgia.

[Cruzaholic41]

Wow. If this is the sort of thing you’re reporting as a journalist, I have serious concerns about your quest for accuracy. You’re doing a lot of people an injustice if you’re reporting this as true. 

[missalexandra]

1 minute ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

Wow. If this is the sort of thing you’re reporting as a journalist, I have serious concerns about your quest for accuracy. You’re doing a lot of people an injustice if you’re reporting this as true. 

Show me where I am wrong. Supply citations. I'll wait. 

[Aquahound]

7 minutes ago, missalexandra said:

I'm a journalist and have written about this issue. I know the law quite well. I certainly know it better than someone who thinks where a ship is flagged is the controlling question for cases of drug possession. If I have Florida license plates, smoking marijuana in my (stationary) car is still legal in Seattle. And having Colorado plates does not make it legal in Georgia.

 

If you're a journalist, you really need to work on the reading part of your job.  I NEVER said the ship's flag was the "controlling question."  Go back and read post #60 again.  I used the flag as ONLY ONE factor considered in reference to cruises that do not embark in the US.  If you were following along, you'd see it was in response to your comment "you are, I assume, aware that there are countries other than the United States."

 

Here are some facts that you should consider in the future when reporting on this issue. Cruise ships embark and debark in the US in MTSA (Maritime Transportation Security Act) regulated facilities.  They are also called Ports of Entry.  That means they are federally regulated.  Federally prohibited drugs are not permitted in Ports of Entry or in MTSA regulated facilities, and all workers are subject to random drug and alcohol testing.  So one more time, as an educated, subject matter expert in this field, it does not matter what the state says.  As long as it is illegal federally, it will NEVER be allowed on cruise ships in US ports.  Period.  Exclamation Point. 

[TruckerDave]

If there is one person on this whole message board I would NOT enter into a debate with on maritime legal issues.....that person would be Mr Aquahound. 

[Elaine5715]

3 hours ago, missalexandra said:

What makes something "illegal" on board a ship is the law where it is docked at that moment.  You can use any drug you want in international waters. In the US, cruise ships go by federal law as far as official policies because the cruise line wants to make all authorities happy and does not want to be involved in a state/federal controversy.

 

As far as reality, federal law is relevant if you are passing through customs or airport security, or if you are a business large enough for federal authorities to care about you. Otherwise, state law determines whether the police will bother you because they work for state and local governments, not the federal government. Whether or not they will be arrested is what individuals care about and that is mostly a function of state and local law.

 

It is not certain what would happen if the clash between state and federal marijuana laws were litigated. It is in almost everyone's interest not to litigate it and so I doubt it will happen before marijuana is legalized nationally, which it almost certainly will be in my lifetime. It will take just a little longer for the prohibition states to realize how much revenue they are losing and for older politicians to be replaced. Support for legalization is overwhelming among younger people.

 

I'm a journalist and have written about this issue. I know the law quite well. I certainly know it better than someone who thinks where a ship is flagged is the controlling question for cases of drug possession. If I have Florida license plates, smoking marijuana in my (stationary) car is still legal in Seattle. And having Colorado plates does not make it legal in Georgia.

International waters isn't lawlessness.  If it was all those domestic violence murderers  would simply toss their spouse overboard once out at sea.

Federal wins over state.

[ATC cruiser]

I'm wondering when the term "sovereign citizens" is going to come up😎

 

[ColeThornton]

3 hours ago, missalexandra said:

Show me where I am wrong. Supply citations. I'll wait. 

 

It would be interesting to read the articles you wrote, could you link them please.

 

Thanks.

[missalexandra]

14 hours ago, Aquahound said:

 

If you're a journalist, you really need to work on the reading part of your job.  I NEVER said the ship's flag was the "controlling question."  Go back and read post #60 again.  I used the flag as ONLY ONE factor considered in reference to cruises that do not embark in the US.  If you were following along, you'd see it was in response to your comment "you are, I assume, aware that there are countries other than the United States."

 

Here are some facts that you should consider in the future when reporting on this issue. Cruise ships embark and debark in the US in MTSA (Maritime Transportation Security Act) regulated facilities.  They are also called Ports of Entry.  That means they are federally regulated.  Federally prohibited drugs are not permitted in Ports of Entry or in MTSA regulated facilities, and all workers are subject to random drug and alcohol testing.  So one more time, as an educated, subject matter expert in this field, it does not matter what the state says.  As long as it is illegal federally, it will NEVER be allowed on cruise ships in US ports.  Period.  Exclamation Point. 

Yes, the ports of entry in the US are federally controlled. Just like airports and customs facilities, two examples I specifically mentioned. Same concept. If they chose to, federal authorities could certainly enforce drug laws there. However, it is a low-profit prospect for them. Federal drug enforcement focuses on distribution networks. Policing cruise passengers is a waste of time for them. It would disrupt commerce in a way that would cause friction with business interests and the public with little potential upside. The cruise lines promulgate official policies that keep all authorities happy and take action when they are forced to because someone is too "public." Neither side has any motivation to upset that copacetic, lucrative situation.  You will not see the DEA in a cruise terminal unless they are investigating something much larger than Sally's package of edibles. As someone who helps pay their salaries, I sure hope they have better uses for their time. 

[missalexandra]

11 hours ago, ColeThornton said:

 

It would be interesting to read the articles you wrote, could you link them please.

 

Thanks.

I don't want my professional identity linked to anything I say in a forum like this. Bad idea. However, I will refer you to a really good, comprehensive article I did not write: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/01/16/five-things-you-should-know-about-federal-and-state-marijuana-laws

[missalexandra]

11 hours ago, Elaine5715 said:

International waters isn't lawlessness.  If it was all those domestic violence murderers  would simply toss their spouse overboard once out at sea.

Federal wins over state.

Federal over state is true as a general rule but the constitution provides areas where state law dominates and the courts have recognized other exceptions. And in practical terms, it is usually in the interest of both sides to avoid conflict.

 

I actually looked this up and learned something I didn't know: in international waters, laws of the country a ship is flagged under DO apply. So my interpretation of that point was wrong.

 

However, "domestic violence murderers" do indeed toss their spouses overboard. Sometimes they even do it on cruise ships, which are notoriously reluctant to do anything about it.

 

If you want to kill someone, getting rid of them at sea is still a great choice, especially if your vessel is under the jurisdiction of a country that doesn't have the resources or motivation to care.

[Cruzaholic41]

8 minutes ago, missalexandra said:

Yes, the ports of entry in the US are federally controlled. Just like airports and customs facilities, two examples I specifically mentioned. Same concept. If they chose to, federal authorities could certainly enforce drug laws there. However, it is a low-profit prospect for them. Federal drug enforcement focuses on distribution networks. Policing cruise passengers is a waste of time for them. It would disrupt commerce in a way that would cause friction with business interests and the public with little potential upside. The cruise lines promulgate official policies that keep all authorities happy and take action when they are forced to because someone is too "public." Neither side has any motivation to upset that copacetic, lucrative situation.  You will not see the DEA in a cruise terminal unless they are investigating something much larger than Sally's package of edibles. As someone who helps pay their salaries, I sure hope they have better uses for their time. 

So rather than admit you’re wrong, you’d rather move your own goalposts and now just call enforcement a waste of time. You really need to just walk away from this thread because your hole keeps getting deeper. 
 

And by the way, you won’t see DEA in port because the ports are DHS territory. 

 

6 minutes ago, missalexandra said:

I don't want my professional identity linked to anything I say in a forum like this. 

Hmmmm.  I wonder why. 🙄

[missalexandra]

Just now, Cruzaholic41 said:

So rather than admit you’re wrong, you’d rather move your own goalposts and now just call enforcement a waste of time. You really need to just walk away from this thread because your hole keeps getting deeper. 
 

And by the way, you won’t see DEA in port because the ports are DHS territory. 

 

I have not "moved the goalposts." Nor was I wrong. I specifically said earlier that federal authorities have explicit control over federal facilities. I never questioned that.  I do question *why they would have any motivation to use it* to look for vacationers with CBD in their luggage. I have attempted to discuss not only who has authority over drug enforcement but also the reality of ACTUAL enforcement and how it relates to cruise lines' policies. I understand if that is too nuanced for you, or if the thought of evil marijuana users evading prosecution simply upsets your authoritarian heart.

 

I do think enforcing possession laws is a waste of time, especially for federal agencies who have real, serious threats to deal with. Do you want them searching people's luggage for joints or fighting cartels and terrorists? That is a separate question entirely from who has the authority to enforce laws and the motivation behind practical policies, the two issues I addressed earlier. Choosing to address a third point in addition to the other two is not "moving the goalposts." 

[VMax1700]

16 minutes ago, missalexandra said:

I actually looked this up and learned something

That is a good start.  When you learn a lot you should return here and post facts.

[Charles4515]

 

If you want to kill someone, getting rid of them at sea is still a great choice, especially if your vessel is under the jurisdiction of a country that doesn't have the resources or motivation to care.

 

 

No it isn’t. You are a terrible journalist. A discredit to the craft if you really are a journalist. If the vessel is at sea and the crime is against or by a a US citizen the FBI has jurisdiction. Or if the ship departs or arrives at US port.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

[Aquahound]

41 minutes ago, missalexandra said:

Federal over state is true as a general rule but the constitution provides areas where state law dominates and the courts have recognized other exceptions. And in practical terms, it is usually in the interest of both sides to avoid conflict.

 

I actually looked this up and learned something I didn't know: in international waters, laws of the country a ship is flagged under DO apply. So my interpretation of that point was wrong.

 

However, "domestic violence murderers" do indeed toss their spouses overboard. Sometimes they even do it on cruise ships, which are notoriously reluctant to do anything about it.

 

If you want to kill someone, getting rid of them at sea is still a great choice, especially if your vessel is under the jurisdiction of a country that doesn't have the resources or motivation to care.

 

Wow.  Where do I begin with this dumpster fire?

 

If you think cruise lines are so reluctant to do anything about domestic violence murders and you think only the ship's flag has jurisdiction at sea, you might want to look up Ken Manzanares.  Better yet, you might want to call the FBI, US Coast Guard, US Attorney's Office and the country of Bermuda, and tell them we had no jurisdiction in the arrest and subsequent conviction on Mr. Manzanares for killing his wife at sea on the Bermuda flagged Emerald Princess.  

 

And while you're at it, call the Southern District of Florida and tell them they had no jurisdiction to arrest, convict and sentence Mr. Ketut Pujayasa, an Indonesian, for the brutal beating, rape, and attempted murder of a US citizen at sea on the Dutch flagged Nieuw Amsterdam. 

 

And here's another little fun fact for you.  On cruises that start and end in the state of Florida, the state can actually arrest for cases of domestic violence that occurred on the high seas.  So not only is there US federal jurisdiction if it involves US citizens, but the state can charge.  The state piece was challenged and ultimately upheld (state v stepansky). 

 

I have been working with the cruise industry for decades and not once.....NOT ONCE....were they uncooperative, nor were they reluctant to participate in the prosecution of violent assaults, domestic or otherwise.  

 

Do some crimes go un-prosecuted?  Sure.  But that has NOTHING to do with cruise line reluctance.  It's that little thing we call probable cause....you know, the burden of proof.