What this means is that UNLESS Congress is regulating the interstate commerce of X they could not regulate the personal consumption of X. Furthermore, the courts have ruled that the personal consumption of X MUST substantially effect Congress' ability to regulate the interstate commerce of X.
(Oh, and please explain how it is that Justice Thomas can say there are no "meaningful limits" to Congress' Article I powers right after he, personally, bitch-slapped Congress by ruling their commerce claused-based statutes in Lopez AND Morrison were unconstitutional and therefore void. Yep. Just like a teenager, Congress has the power to stay out all night ... as long as they're home by 10:00.)
"please explain how it is that Justice Thomas can say there are no "meaningful limits" to Congress' Article I powers"
It was a conditional clause, an 'if' statement.
IF a federal SWAT team can break your door down and arrest you for growing on your own property and there consuming homegrown vegetation, then there is no limit on what else they might do.
Well, they can do that and they have. The commerce clause can be used for any damn thing they like, because if the above can be construed as bound up with interstate commerce, I can't think of any post-Neandertal activity that isn't and that isn't as a result regulable.