Neither do I, as it is a state issue, just like abortion.
But illegal drugs are a scourge on this country and if we have a tool and it’s been sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme court then we need to use it.
Again, you target drugs because of what they are, ignoring constitutional principles that should apply in all cases. Unconstitutional eminent domain land grabs for private gain and use have also been sanctioned by SCOTUS, so they are not a very good benchmark.
might add that this is the court we have been working so hard to get
This court hasn't heard any seizure cases AFAIK. But in the previous court they stretched the commerce clause far beyond any believable intent of the Constitution. In Golzalez v. Raich, our most conservative justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent:
Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
Respondent’s local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce ... among the several States.” Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
This is not we’re are talking about. We’re talking about drug dealers most states already recognize the difference between quantities for personal use and for resale hence misdomeaner vs felony.