You say that like interstate commerce regulation was more egregious for wheat than it was for marijuana.

But Raich is significantly more egregious: the theory on which the government won Wickard v. Filburn, that private consumption of wheat could affect the interstate market for wheat, doesn't even apply, because there can be no interstate market in a substance that is illegal to trade.

▲

ianferrel an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>there can be no interstate market in a substance that is illegal to trade.

There is in fact an interstate market in many substances that are illegal to trade because laws against things do not make those things fail to exist.

	▲	PaulDavisThe1st 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No market that the federal government can recognize, tax or regulate

▲

gowld an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The reason marijuana is Federally illegal in the first place is because the commerce clause is interpreted to allow it.