[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.

[publiusF27]

But in the case of US vs Knight, the Supreme Court ruled that manufacturing is not the same thing as commerce, so the individuals who do not sell their pot are not engaging in commerce that can be regulated.

Now, there may be some later Supreme Court cases saying different things.... Can you think of any? No W’s.