The reasoning sounds really warped. First supposedly regulating international trade, then supposedly regulating interstate trade, and now regulating intrastate trade and even no trade at all.
Seems to me that the Constitution says that if substances are going to be prohibited it has to be done by the states.
I’ve never been real solidly-convinced about the various “libertarian” issues. I’m still sort of conflicted about some of them. But it seems like the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause don’t mesh very well when the Commerce Clause is used as a way for the feds to control intrastate commerce or no commerce at all.
I agree with you. But, speaking as a lawyer (i.e., telling you what the law is and not what I think it should be), the current interpretation is that Congress can regulate all commerce, even if it's not interstate (e.g., minimum wage laws), and can regulate anything interstate, even if it's not commerce (e.g., possession of a gun made in another state) . But Congress can generally not regulate something that's neither (Lopez and the Affordable Care Act cases say that, but Raich seems to contradict even that limit).