There was no declaration of war, there is no discernible "enemy". The "war on drugs" is as much a real "war" as the "war on poverty".
We do not make a declaration of war against pirates. To date, no Nation-State has agreed to be regarded as responsible for abetting the importation of drugs into our cities. They all allege it is the activity of criminals whom they have not been able to control. Do not doubt that had a Nation State deliberately sent drugs into our cities as a matter of their governmental policy (as did the British to China) it would no doubt be regarded as a defacto act of war, and a consequent declaration of war would likely not be far behind. Again, as the miscreants who are engaging in such activities are not officially sanctioned by any government, they can only possess the legal classification of that given to Pirates; Independent agents who are waging a low intensity attack upon our nation.
In your mind that rationalization might justify the drug war, while de-legitimizing all the other abuses of the Commerce Clause, but in Washington and in the courts it will not.
I do not think with the mind(s) of the Washington Courts. Were they to think with mine, they would likely make far wiser and logically consistent decisions.
I'm having a hard time establishing the moral equivalence between
(a) those who attack law-abiding merchants or travelers on the high seas, killing or kidnapping them and stealing their property, and
(b) those who wish to sell a product to citizens who would (other than their private use of said product) be considered law-abiding and respectful of their neighbors.
I guess it's just me.