I did clarify that. If you choose to ignore the clarification, fine. But expect to see the following paragraphs everytime you attemt to misinterpret what I said:
"Congress can regulate non-"commercial" or non-"economic" activity under the third category of its interstate commerce authority. But it can only do so where the non-"commercial" or non-"economic" regulation is, as Lopez explained, "an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated." Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1631."
The Court has confined the third category of activities that Congress may regulate pursuant to its interstate commerce power to "cases upholding regulation of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce." Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1630, 1631.
The courts would not, and have not, approved regulations of activities that did not have a substantial effect. Cases in point: VAWA and Gun Free Schools. I said before that I agreed with those decisions.
Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. If there is an activity that undercuts that regulatory power, it needs to be addressed. Simply a practical view.
"cases upholding regulation of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction"
Now, how do you reconcile that opinion with your own in the context of someone growing marijuana for their own use?