Fake drugs are drugs which have been communicated by the owner to be real drugs and are sold as such. There are laws against this. If I transfer a bag of flour to your possession with the explicit warning that it's actually cocaine, then I broke the law. If I make no mention as to its contents, and the buyer makes an assumption, there is no way to prosecute me for possession or distribution of fake drugs.
I don't know if its because you don't have a real argument that you are trying to make these nuances work in your defense, but they don't.
Lets say then, if you make it to the airport with such, and are found in possession with it, and the authorities have no knowledge of said transaction, only that you are in possession of what 'appears' to be illicit substances i.e. flour in a condom - if you seriously think that they don't have the right or ability to detain you upon suspicion, you are simply a fool - 'fake' drugs are any substances that the law enforcement officers may determine as such in accordance with law in respect to test results (which is what this thread is really about) - its not for you to determine for them. Its their jobs to take just these sorts of situations seriously until they can prove otherwise through their own means, and not by your beliefs, sorry.
If I happen to be a chef & have on me, and am found with a pound of dried oregano rolled up in a plastic bag at the airport - you better believe the cops have the right to detain me and ask what it is, simply because, not knowing my situation or circumstances, it
is suspicious with the right to test it unless I can obviously, immediately prove otherwise. That is exactly their job & what they are
supposed to do in those instances.
its not a matter of, 'well it isn't real so you can't do anything to stop me in the first place I'm a free american' - wake up to reality, and yes your child-like stubborness on this matter makes me wonder - like I said, why don't try it yourself and see if your beliefs and presented arguments work for you in the real world - you're really grasping hard for something here, please!
You know, its funny you glossed over CH3CH2OH response here, so let me qoute it for you so you can't say it wasn't presented to you -
There is no such thing as unreasonable search and seizure at an airport/seaport/border crossing. This a long held legal precedent and i have no problem with it. When you agree to fly on an airplane, go on a cruise, or cross the border, you consent to any searches. There is no protection in these places from search and seizure.
And to finish addressing the rest of you own quote Coolio -
Just because something is "suspicious" does not mean it's illegal nor does it mean someone should be able to be harassed about their odd behavior. There's no reason anyone should be supportive of the law enforcement in cases like this - yeah it's "obvious" that the person arrested in the article was "up to no good", but that is a right every American citizen has, to be up to no good without fear of harassment.
So, now, you admit you think they were up to no good, hmm,
Again, no, suspicion doesn't
equate illegality, none of us are arguing that - it
does however, even if you don't want to believe it, promote enough of a cause for law enforcement to investigate further in order to have
proven to them that it
isn't illegal, and so, in order to determine what action for them to take in response - you may think you know how laws should work in your own mind, but that isn't how they're pursued in the real world -
Don't delude yourself into believing what you think you know in the place of what the reality is - if you want to continue this - read the constitution, and the bill of rights, then study federal & international laws, and all subsequent state laws as they are different - then come back, and we'll discuss, but, I don't think that the
'right to being up to no good without fear of harrasment', as you say - was included as a right, as expressed in the bill of rights or in our constitution, though I'll be sure to double check for ya!8)
Coolio, your continued obstinance on this matter does not serve you, sorry.
Again, this is not an argument about how I personally feel about the situation of the so called 'current enviroment' as you seem to be making with regards to, if its right or wrong or needs to be addressed and or changed - or how the utopian world of freedom should be - its a matter of seeing what the reality is like, now, and how its is currently operating even if it may not seem appropriate in your contextual view of constitutional and or inherent american rights. So perhaps you should make it your goal in life, to become a constitutional lawyer, and get to where you can make the changes you see that we need, and once again - good luck!