Since our drug rules DO apply to all drugs shipped to this country for sale from foreign countries, and we are not at war over it, I would say your argument is fallacious.
I certainly could see a level of regulation going beyond what should be constitutionally permissible, although the supreme court has shown little interest in restricting the commerce clause no matter what the political makeup of the court has been. But I do believe that some regulation of drugs sold is within a reasonable interpretation of constitutional authority.
Although I might argue that the government really has no purpose in regulating what individuals can buy at all, and should only regulate the market to ensure that consumers have the information they need to make informed choices, and so that contracts (which sales are a type of) can be informed and enforced.
I said regulation of commerce, to the extent it's imposed on the states, not mere drug rules. To put it in perspective though, using the very argument you have, consider the Raich case where the FedGov declared it could regulate a private citizen growing something despite there being no interstate commerce for it to impact (the justification given in Wickard). — now apply that level of regulation to what goes on in foreign countries, because that is what we're talking about.
I certainly could see a level of regulation going beyond what should be constitutionally permissible, although the supreme court has shown little interest in restricting the commerce clause no matter what the political makeup of the court has been. But I do believe that some regulation of drugs sold is within a reasonable interpretation of constitutional authority.
Virtually all regulation you commonly encounter today would have been considered unconstitutional two hundred years ago. (This is the result of the Wickard ruling, and those built upon it.)