[Mojave]

To justify his reasoning, you go straight to Wickard's substantial effect/aggregation arguments....

Look, if you're afraid to address the argument I posted, just admit it.

One last chance, then I'm done with you.

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.

[publiusF27]

We're wandering in circles.

My original question to you:

How can it be essential to regulate things that have no substantial effect at all?

Where the regulation is essential to a system of comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce, as Scalia stated.

But how can regulating things that don't have an effect on commerce be essential to regulating commerce?

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.

Bringing us back to my original question:

How can it be essential to regulate things that have no substantial effect at all?

If you won't answer that one, answer this one: is there a Supreme Court precedent that you can name that says that if an intrastate, non-commercial activity can, in the aggregate, affect interstate commerce it can be properly regulated under the commerce clause? (I mean one that doesn't start with W, of course).