No, I am not arguing both sides. Bad laws produce bad results, but that does not invalidate the principle of rule of law. Bad precedents assail the Constitution, but that does not necessarily invalidate the principle of judicial precedent. Bad precedents at least allow us to predict with some confidence how courts will rule in the future. No precedents means that we can never know what the law is.
The right way to attack bad precedents (Dred Scott) is to amend the underlying justification (in the case of Dred Scott, amendments XIII, XIV, XV).
So you think that in order to overrule Roe we should pass a Constitutional Amendment? What about Plessy v. Ferguson? Was the SCOTUS supposed to uphold it, if they believed that it was unconstitutional? And what about precedents that overruled previous precedents (like West Coast Hotel v. Parrish f.ex.)? :-)
Moving the law (back) in the right direction is more important that merely extrapolating it in a wrong direction. One can look beyond the status quo however to the status quo ante.
In the case the Drug War and numerous other commerce clause abuses, the problem is an intentional misreading of what were accepted interpretations and settled law up until the New Deal, when FDR led a coup against that document. A "this is what the commerce clause actually means" amendment would be redundant.