[publiusF27]

Sez who?

Sez you! Your argument was only three sentences, and the first one relies on the substantial effects/aggregation test. If that's a valid test, there should be a court precedent saying so. Can you think of one? No W's now...

[Mojave]

Your argument was only three sentences, and the first one relies on the substantial effects/aggregation test.

You mean the argument you've run away from a half dozen times or so now?

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.

Your continuing evasion is telling. Squealing "Wickard" doesn't address the facts.