You are being deliberately obtuse. The fact that Liberal judges and liberal lawyers use this socialist tool to make their legal claims DOES NOT ESTABLISH that stopping drugs is not constitutional.
I regard it as completely constitutional. Drugs are a foreign chemical warfare threat against the American populace. They are the very means by which the British and then Japan brought China to it's knees.
Nobody has a "right" to do drugs. Arguments that doing drugs are a "right" are utter nonsense.
No, it is not authorized under the 'defense clause'. Congress has not claimed such and the Courts have never ruled that way. If you support fedgov control over intrastate marijuana regulation, you support Wickard.
Yes, it *IS* authorized under the defense clause, and a sh*t I do not give whether the courts or congress has said so or not. Given how lazy and illogical they are, why should they lift a finger to make new case law under the Defense clause when they can point to "Wickard" with no additional effort? They will wring whatever they can out of it until they can't.
The fact of the matter is that drug interdiction is perfectly constitutional (George Washington himself ordered the US forces to thwart the Whiskey rebellion.) and whether or not the courts and congress point to the wrong clause to justify it is immaterial to the fact that it *IS* justified under the Defense clause of the US Constitution.
Your drug war depends on those liberals' view of the Constitution.
For those who believe in the original Constitution, using Wickard to overrule state marijuana regulation is a violation of both the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment. You can't weasel out of your support for Wickard, nor your trashing of the Tenth Amendment by claiming the 'defense clause'.