Your only defense is putting words in my mouth. What gives?
Are you trying to bury guilty feelings or something?

That was the takeaway I got from your statement. If that is not what you meant by all means please elaborate, I don't wish to have an incorrect understanding of your position.

My point is that cops love prohibition because it gives them all sorts of extra powers to shake people down, and those powers get abused all the time.
Anyone who supports keeping cannabis in the same category of dangerous drugs as heroin and fentanyl is either clueless or has a hidden agenda.

My point is that cops love prohibition because it gives them all sorts of extra powers to shake people down, and those powers get abused all the time.

For what purpose though? Shake people down just for the sake of shaking people down?

You are taking things too personally, cops don't wake up looking to abuse powers. They aren't demented kids pulling the legs off of bugs for fun. Most of the time you see cops crossing the line of peopole's civil rights it is because they have a job they are tasked with and it is easier to do. Maybe they get lazy or too passionate, or too angry and use too much force or infringe on your right to privacy but it is not out of a joy in doing so, it is about a task they have, a law to enforce. So, for example, if a cop is trying to catch a drug dealer they might detain without enough reason or search more than they are allowed but its because they want to get the bad guy, not out of some joy in violating the 4th amendment.

For what purpose though? Shake people down just for the sake of shaking people down?

You are taking things too personally, cops don't wake up looking to abuse powers. They aren't demented kids pulling the legs off of bugs for fun. Most of the time you see cops crossing the line of peopole's civil rights it is because they have a job they are tasked with and it is easier to do. Maybe they get lazy or too passionate, or too angry and use too much force or infringe on your right to privacy but it is not out of a joy in doing so, it is about a task they have, a law to enforce. So, for example, if a cop is trying to catch a drug dealer they might detain without enough reason or search more than they are allowed but its because they want to get the bad guy, not out of some joy in violating the 4th amendment.

A distinction without a difference.

Is it violating the persons 4th if later on, like 14 days later said cop obides by it?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Incorrect. If you only look at it from the lens of the person who is having their rights violated they might not see much difference but if you look at the problem as a whole, then it absolutely makes a difference. If you have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of why a problem exists then you won't be as effective at tackling the problem.

For what purpose though? Shake people down just for the sake of shaking people down?

Your question is vague and not serious.

But to try and answer anyway, an officer's actions are judged legally in most instances by the reasonableness standard. Things aren't always black and white, there are all sorts of legal and case law standards when it comes to the 4th amendment that determine whether an officer did something properly or improperly and small details can mean the difference between a legal search/detention and an illegal one.

need to buy more popcorn

Let's have a BBQ and bring our chairs.  And something to drink.  Might be a while.

why spend time with people who argue? had enough of that just going to the last gunshow.

The price of avoiding politics is being ruled by criminals and morons

well...here we are!

Politics non-stop 24/7/365?

I think even you could take a break for a BBQ, right?