[Rockingham]

As Raich makes clear though, federal law can be enforced so as to ban marijuana within a state without regard to state law or whether the marijuana is nominally ‘intended’ for interstate commerce. This is because growing marijuana creates a commodity that can be readily put into interstate commerce.

[Mojave]

As Raich makes clear though, federal law can be enforced so as to ban marijuana within a state without regard to state law or whether the marijuana is nominally ‘intended’ for interstate commerce.

True.

[tacticalogic]

As Raich makes clear though, federal law can be enforced so as to ban marijuana within a state without regard to state law or whether the marijuana is nominally ‘intended’ for interstate commerce. This is because growing marijuana creates a commodity that can be readily put into interstate commerce.

The Founder's writings on the subject make it clear that this is not within the intent of the commerce clause.

Whether it could potentially be interstate commerce or not is irrelevant. There's virtuallly nothing that wouldn't meet that standard, and if you read the associated writings on the subject, it is clear that this is not the power the clause conveyed.

It is not subject to federal regulation until it actually enters the channels of interstate commerce, and then it was only intended that it be regulated to prevent trade disputes between the states.

[Huck]

Raich doesn't make anything clear. It merely affirmed Wickard, which said the federal government can prevent a farmer from growing his own WHEAT under the commerce clause. In effect, under this interpretation, the government can ban or control ANY commodity. Anyone who thinks that is what the commerce clause meant at ratification is insane.

It's a completely bogus interpretation, but one that Scalia chose to affirm.