[robertpaulsen]

"cultivation for personal use, where no commerce occurs."

So, wouldn't you then conclude that cultivation for personal use interferes with interstate commerce because, as a result, no commerce occurs? Just a thought.

You're saying that growing your own has no effect in interstate commerce. Sure it does. Affects intrastate commerce, too.

[FreeTally]

So, wouldn't you then conclude that cultivation for personal use interferes with interstate commerce because, as a result, no commerce occurs? Just a thought.

You guys jump to such absurd ends that it is utterly hilarious.

[dirtboy]

So, wouldn't you then conclude that cultivation for personal use interferes with interstate commerce because, as a result, no commerce occurs? Just a thought.

I thought only liberals tried this absolutely convoluted view of the commerce clause for justifying federal intrusion into every aspect of our lives. Are you really sure you want to trash what is left of your intellectual reputation on this conservative website?

[Ken H]

So, then wouldn't you conclude that cultivation for personal use interferes with interstate commerce because, as a result, no commerce occurs?

Under that interpretation, a family's vegetable garden would be subject to Federal regulation.

[MrLeRoy]

"cultivation for personal use, where no commerce occurs."

You're saying that growing your own has no effect in interstate commerce.

No, he said "no commerce occurs."

[Hemingway's Ghost]

So, wouldn't you then conclude that cultivation for personal use interferes with interstate commerce because, as a result, no commerce occurs? Just a thought.

In other words, his crime is not participating in an illegal market, a market that was made illegal to prevent it from existing. Brilliant W.o.D. circlethink!

[philman_36]

So, wouldn't you then conclude that cultivation for personal use interferes with interstate commerce because, as a result, no commerce occurs?
Shall I answer this one now?