[Mojave]

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

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.

[crickets]

[publiusF27]

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.

But that only becomes relevant if you can find a Supreme Court precedent saying that something that, in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce can be regulated under the commerce clause, even if the activity itself is intrastate and non-commercial. Can you find such a precedent? Remember, nothing starting with a W.

[TigersEye]

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.

[crickets]

Yes there is. If the product is sold and shipped it part of commerce. If it isn't it isn't.

There! your crickets are dead just like that pedophilic Constitutional moron, robertpaulsen. :-)