White power is not by its nature illegal.
I didn't say that white powder was illegal, I said that white powder that is suspected to be an illegal substance can be seized.
If you've got a bag of Gold Medal flour in the car with you the police aren't going to suspect that it's a drug, same if you've got a jar of Johnson's Baby Powder.
The police have to have a reasonable, articulable, suspicion that the powder is actually a drug before they can, or will even bother to, legally seize it.
I know that cops, as a breed, aren't necessarially the sharpest tools in the shed (though neither are they necessarially the dullest) but they are trained to identify illegal drugs and they're going to know what an illegal drug looks like, what it smells like, how it is typically packaged, they'll probably conduct some sort of on-the-spot chemical testing of the substance, and all of that.
When they seize it they're going to write a report articulating exactly why they suspected that the substance was an illegal drug.
With cash money they can't possibly articulate a reasonable suspicion that it is the proceeds of some illegal activity.
What are they going to put in their report?
"Well, the guy had $20,000 in cash in a brown paper bag on the seat next to him and he refused to sufficiently explain to me, to my satisfaction, where he got that money, so it's probably drug money."
That's just stupid.
What if the guy got that money from legally selling a couple of custom Ed Brown 1911s and he just doesn't want to tell the government that he sold some guns?
There's nothing at all illegal with what the guy did, they were his guns, he sold them in a face to face transaction, he didn't have any reason to believe that the purchaser was legally prohibited from owning firearms, it isn't any of the government's business, the guy certainly has good reason to not what to share his gun ownership history with the government that we've got.
Your opinion is that it's perfectly legal for the government to seize that guy's money.
What if it isn't money but instead valuable goods that the guy doesn't have a receipt for?
Say that the same guy is on his way to sell some stuff, or say that the guy is in the process of moving and doesn't want to ship his high dollar value property, and the cops pull him over and find that he's got a couple of custom handguns, a couple of tricked out AR15s, a collection of Rolex watches, a high end Alienware laptop computer, a 2 carat diamond pinky ring, and some other fancy stuff.
Easily $100,000 worth of property.
It's certainly possible that the guy is thief and stole all of this stuff.
It's also perfectly possible that the guy actually owns all of the stuff and just doesn't hoard receipts for every purchase he makes.
Since the possibility exists that the property was stolen, and the guy can't establish at the scene that he is the lawful owner of the property, by your logic the cops, absent any reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime actually occurred should be able to seize his property on the mere suspicion that some crime may possibly have occured.
Take it a step further in to the absurd (though it wouldn't surprise me to hear that the government does some absurd stuff).
Say you've got your kids in the car with you, twin infants.
Maybe they're your kids.
Maybe they're a couple of kids that you've kidnapped.
I don't know about you but I don't go around carrying my children's birth certificates.
Should the cops be able to seize your children if you can't demonstrate, to the government's satisfaction, that they're actually your children?
Sorry, but Trump fans don't get too critique Hillary fans for that anymore than Senator Warren gets to advise others of cultural appropriation. 