Consider that the states never ratified an amendment for the regulation of drugs as we have with the War on Drugs like they had to do with alcohol. Instead they rely on precedent
(*spit*) of things like Wickard and Raich — it is in the supporting of the War on Drugs that we have the acceptance of the NSA's domestic spying [legally speaking] and the erosion of many other legal rights. (According to my count the War on Drugs has had deleterious effects on six or seven of the Bill of Rights's Amendments.)
In short, the Supreme Court is not above issuing rulings supporting "current practices" even if they are in direct conflict with the Constitution.
The fact that Wickard v. Raich was decided after Wickard v. Filburn makes it suspicious.
In fact, since were're taking about precedent concerning the Commerce Clause, please consider the following. Regardless what FDR's activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers in Wickard, the justices seem to have "overlooked" that the Court had historically clarifed that the Commerce Clause gave Congress no power regulate intrastate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added)” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The reason that activist justices get away with amending the Constitution from the bench is the following imo. Sadly, parents for many generations have not been making sure that their children are being taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers. Consequently, voters are oblivious when activist justices unconstitutionally expand Congress's powers.