[Ken H]

What was the context for that quote?

You can read Scalia's decision at the following url -

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Here is one example of how Raich has affected guns. From wikipedia:

"Not long after the decision in Raich, the Court vacated a lower court decision in United States v. Stewart and remanded it to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Raich. In Stewart, the Ninth Circuit had held that Congress lacked the Commerce Clause power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

[butterdezillion]

Thanks. What a boondoggle.

Seems to me that he’s saying that it would be too easy for a home grower in CA to ultimately end up in the hands of somebody outside of CA. Somebody outside of CA could grow the crop in CA and then take it to the state where they live and sell it there. Because growing it isn’t illegal in CA, taking it across state lines wouldn’t be illegal because that isn’t a commercial activity, and selling it in a single state wouldn’t be federally-regulated because it is intrastate and not interstate.... allowing people to grow marijuana in CA could allow the interstate production and sale of marijuana that technically didn’t break any laws because the growing was done in a different state than the selling.

But that doesn’t make sense to me either, because selling drugs is illegal regardless of where the drugs were produced. Right? They use the commerce clause to justify forbidding the sale of it but it’s illegal to sell it even if state lines aren’t crossed. Right?

None of this makes any sense to me.