This cruise ship example you keep using is a bit pointless and irrelevant to the overall debate really as its a rather niche and specific example of tourism.
And certainly you're reference to someone buying Orcadian whisky off Amazon as a form of "tourism" is borderline bizarre.
Admittedly those people occasionally pouring off cruise ships do provide a temporary injection of cash and I'll even acknowledge that those cruise ship tourists aren't directly responsible for the predominant economic downside of tourism, that obviously being the huge increase in the cost of local accommodation thanks to the demand for holiday home/holiday lets.
Although the cruise ship visitors do still make a significant contribution to the many other peripheral socio-economic downsides of tourism in terms of the pressure and demand they place on local public services and infrastructure and the associated additional costs to the local tax payers.
BUT, even with your example of the cruise ship tourists the fact remains that the vast proportion of any money they do spend still goes directly into the pockets of the tourism business owners, the few crumbs that any employees in those businesses get go no way at all toward making up for the NET socio-economic disadvantages they suffer from as a result of wider tourism.
I admire your self confidence in attempting to join the debate even though you’ve clearly demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of even the most basic economic principles and laws of supply and demand if you genuinely believe that tourists spending in an economy somehow "keeps prices down"... I have to inform you the very opposite happens.