Is abolishing civil asset forfeiture realistic or just idealistic activism?

Every time I read about a local police department seizing cash or property with "no charge, no trial" I get the same headache. On paper, the Fourth Amendment should stop that, but the statutes give them a loophole that practically guarantees profit over due process.

On the other hand, proponents say it's a vital tool for drug enforcement, that without it criminals hide assets and the state loses a revenue stream. But is that revenue really worth violating basic property rights? And does it even work – are the seized assets actually tied to criminal activity, or are they just cash from petty offenses?

I can't decide if a full repeal is the only logical step, or if a middle ground (stricter oversight, mandatory judicial review before seizure) could actually fix the worst abuses without hamstringing law enforcement.

What do you think? Do we have a constitutional argument strong enough to force a total ban, or are we just being naive idealists? And if you support keeping it, how would you defend the due‑process violations that seem inherent?

Looking for solid arguments, not just "it's broken" clichés.