Why would this be argued under the Commerce Clause and not under the Elastic Clause? It makes no sense to me. Is it because one person using medical marijuana, perhaps in a confined situation, doesn’t stand to harm the “general welfare” since it is a private thing? From an anti-drug perspective, it could be argued that high people do pose a threat to the general well-being even if no money exchanges hands - if, for instance, they drive, vote, practice medicine, etc impaired. So why did they argue this using the Commerce Clause when no commerce was even involved? It makes no sense to me.
What year was that decision?
Not familiar with the Elastic Clause. Could you copy and paste it here?