Interesting. You are making two arguments which are non sequitur. Unfortunately, this is how the federal government continues on its path to Leviathan status.
By your first definition, which closely matches the intent of the commerce clause, if Mary goes to Colorado and purchases a hundred packages of smoked salmon and takes them back to Oklahoma for resale, then the Federal government has some standing. Primarily, their intended role was to ensure that a pound of smoked salmon weighed in Colorado, and unaltered, has the same weight in Oklahoma, and that tariffs would not be charged by Oklahoma for the "import" of the smoked salmon, thus stoking trade wars between the confederation of states.
By your second definition, if Mary buys a single smoked salmon in Colorado to eat at home with her prime rib, she is magically involved in interstate commerce. This is an obvious overreach of the federal government to anyone who is not a lawyer for the leviathan.
Unfortunately for every citizen of the US, the current situation is actually far worse than this. The supreme court has actually upheld this scenario:
Lucy and Jenny live in California. California has decriminalized medical use marijuana. Jenny is confined to a wheelchair, and cannot do much to help herself. Lucy grows pot in their back yard, specifically and uniquely for Jenny's use. The pot is grown in California, is never sold to anyone, and is consumed in California. In point of fact, the pot never leaves Lucy's private property. The DEA raids Lucy & Jenny and arrests them for violation of federal law. They get a conviction, followed by appeal ... ultimately to the supreme court.
The government argues that Lucy's production of pot on her own private property in a state that allows such use, has ...wait for it... the potential to affect interstate commerce of pot by other parties, in other states, even when they have no knowledge of Lucy and Jenny's activities.
And this is how a federal government gives itself unlimited power over anything in anyone's life. Your homemade apple pie may now be considered to potentially affect the interstate commerce of something...maybe saran wrap, under this interpretation, even if it never leaves your kitchen and is made from sugar, wheat and apples that you grew on your own property.
George Orwell was a piker.
They should have shot Wickard, and sent Filburn to Congress.
The commerce clause is designed to encourage trade and protect neighboring states.
What you are saying is Mary is not involved in interstate commerce, and that she doesn’t affect her state. That’s a lie. Mary IS involved in interstate commerce. It starts with one Mary, then two. And so forth. When does it end? What’s the cutoff? 1000 Marys’? 20,000? 2,000,000 Marys’?
While I’ll heartily agree the feds often overreach (federal land grabs, EPA, welfare programs, etc.), I don’t agree that the feds are overreaching in their attempts to keep the laws of commerce fair, regulated, and equal amongst the few states. War or no war against drugs, there’s a very good reason why they were made illegal in the first place. Those reasons haven’t changed, regardless of what potheads or libertarians say. We’ve all heard this same story before. “States can take care of themselves.” Really? Like California? How about New York? What about New Mexico? Contrary to the libertarian snot rag that keeps getting passed around, these states DO impact their neighbors with poor commerce legislation. What’s their recourse other than having to constantly plead with the courts to keep their neighbors in check?