I mentioned twice on this thread, the constitutional and legal aspects of America's drug control policy. I guess you didn't see them. Here they are again, for your benefit.
America's current national drug control policy, is part of the National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 and is based on the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. There is nothing unconstitutional about this policy. Link here to the CSA of 1970 and link here to the USSC decision, Tobey v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991) that supports the CSA of 1970.
The basic constitutionality of the act is not addressed because it is not even arguable. Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause. The ONLY issue was one of delegation, can Congress delegate it's legislative authority to an executive-branch agency. Again, under fairly settled law, Congress can so long as it limits the discretion of the agency and provides the overall structure/guidance to the agency in the grant of delegation, and so long as the agency follows established principles of administrative law (due process, review and comment, etc).
You're right it's not arguable. It's unconstitutional, per the 10th Amendment. That's why a constitutional amendment was required to criminalize alcohol.
Or how a person can have cash confiscated from him, again without arrest, trial or conviction of crime, if the amount equals or exceeds whatever amount Congress deems unnaceptable just because the money might be from or intended for use in a crime?
LOL. It's not debatable because it's not arguable?
Using the above condition, anything can be banned or regulated by the feds simply because it is "transported in interstate commerce." Given that, the 18th Amendment would not have been needed to ban alcoholic beverages. Congress could have simply banned alcohol under the guise of protecting interstate commerce. But it should be pointed out that even the well-meaning, misguided people pushing for prohibition at least seemed to grasp the concept of constitutional interpretation. They realized that in order to give the federal government new powers, the Constitution itself had to be properly amended. That isn't the case any longer. Now, Congress does what it wants with impunity because there is hardly anyone left who is willing to take a hard stand on constitutional interpretation.
The "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses have been the biggest loopholes used by the federal government to get around constitutional obstacles. Republicans and Democrats use them all the time. They fail to understand that providing for the general welfare includes only those powers enumerated in the Constitution. They also overlook the fact that interstate commerce means exactly that—commerce between the states. Under the original intent of the framers, Congress essentially had the power to crack (no pun intended) down on anything that would hinder free trade among the states. It originally had nothing to do with what kind of substance should or should not be allowed to cross state lines.
If you really want the federal government to have the power to ban illicit drugs within U.S. borders and also maintain your constitutional principles, push for an amendment that bans the manufacture, transportation, sale and use of illicit drugs. At least that would be intellectually honest. Anything short of that is to allow a usurpation of power by the very government designed to protect the integrity of the Constitution. Truth be told, I fear the abuse of power by the government more than I fear the abuse of drugs by its citizens.
Then again, since no one seems to be exercising their obligation to read and interpret the Cosntitution for themselves and hold their elected officials accountable, we all might as well be stoned out of our gourds and just let the government do what it wants.