[robertpaulsen]

"See UNITED STATES v. MORRISON et al., the very recent case in which SCOTUS rejects the "Violence Against Women Act," on the grounds that rape doesn't affect interstate commerce to enough of a degree."

Yes. But you know I can cite numerous cases where the SCOTUS ruled that possession of marijuana does. And not "in a trivial way" -- they have ruled that it has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

[tacticalogic]

Yes. But you know I can cite numerous cases where the SCOTUS ruled that possession of marijuana does. And not "in a trivial way" -- they have ruled that it has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

I think not.

[xm177e2]

Yes. But you know I can cite numerous cases where the SCOTUS ruled that possession of marijuana does. And not "in a trivial way" -- they have ruled that it has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

1) Morrison is a very recent case, by the same court that is hearing Raich.
2) Morrison was a break from precedent, too
3) this case is different because the marijuana is not being used for recreational use (such that it could displace marijuana sold on the market). Cancer patients (and other seriously ill people) are just too small a group to have any non-trivial effect on interstate commerce.