And what exactly does a "valid pot recommendation" mean?
The state and federal governments have the police power to regulate for safety, general health, and welfare of the public. That includes the power to ban substances deemed harmful. The only reason that the federal Constitution needed to be amended to ban alcohol was for the simple reason that the advocates of prohibition wanted an absolute ban on alcohol at both the federal and state levels, and they weren't going to get it by going to Congress and every single legislature in the country, at least not very quickly. The constitutional amendment was thus a practical solution to the problem the prohibitionists had. The amendment was not legally required; Congress and the states could have banned alcohol without it.
As Congress and the states may use their police power to ban things deemed harmful, the seizure of those illegal goods pursuant to that police power does not entitle you to compensation, as the case I cited clearly states.
You have a very poor understanding of takings law. If you sue for compensation asserting eminent domain for the taking of your pot you are going to lose.
Did you know that making frivolous arguments, like the arguments you have advanced here, violate court rules and may lead to sanctions being imposed on you?