But how can regulating things that don't have an effect on commerce be essential to regulating commerce?Read the case.
Individuals who don't sell their pot don't substantially impact interstate commerce. Individuals who do sell their pot do substantially impact interstate commerce in the aggregate.
There's no way to know with any reasonable degree of certainty which one will and which one won't, so both fall within the regulations.
Individuals who do sell their pot do substantially impact interstate commerce in the aggregate.
And which case says that aggregated substantial effects constitute a need for regulation?
Wickard. Now do it again without Wickard, and it will all fall apart, just as I said.