It is a mistake to believe that the Constitution will have specificity on many issues. It is an outline of General Principles. James Madison explains why it is not more specific here.
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”
The U.S. Constitution does not mention meteorites. Yet were someone to drop meteorites on us from above, who would argue that we can do nothing because the constitution doesn't mention attack by meteorites?
Bringing drugs into our country is an attack on our society. Whether the intent behind this smuggling is to destroy us or merely profit from us is irrelevant to the consequences. Our people die as a result, and some of our people's lives are ruined. Add to that the damage they do to the rest of society on their spiral downward and you easily have sufficient justification for attacking and killing anyone who engages in this activity.
The Constitution specifies that we defend our nation from attack. It does not need to list all manners of attack.
Why do you keep arguing points that are not in contention?
Any interdiction at the border is well within the original intent of the Commerce power. Burying my doctor in paperwork that I'm going to end up having to pay for is not, and isn't stopping anyone from bringing drugs into the country.