[JohnKSa]

Did you not understand the difference between the broader authority upheld and what the second respondent had done?

I understand the ruling which is straightforward.

""Held: Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. Pp. 6–31."

They didn't rule on possession, they ruled on cultivation and use.

I suppose that a creative defense attorney might try to argue that a person was possessing marijuana purely as a collectible with no intent to use it, but I think that might be too much creativity to be credible.

Originally Posted by zukiphile at post 52
That's how the grant of power should play out, but the Court in Wickard had other plans.

Well, that was your first response, but it was the next one that sort of dug you into the hole you can't seem to get out of.

"While the facts of Wickard involved production, the rationale wasn't limited to production."

The fact is that Wickard, and all of the cases you have cited involve changing national supply, which is a necessary condition to regulating intrastate activities under the commerce clause.

You omitted the contradictory element of your scenario.

The contradictory element is that the government claims they can regulate my production and I contradict those claims.

"The items/material are legal to own, possess and use/consume under all state and federal law." (Notice that this does not include 'production' since that is the issue where the contradiction arises. The contradiction was initially implicit, but I changed it to be explicit when you objected to the initial wording.)

"I claim it's legal to produce the items/material because the interstate commerce clause doesn't apply. The federal government claims that they can regulate the production of the items/material (including criminally prosecuting me) under the power of the interstate commerce clause."

Clearly the two sentences set up a direct contradiction.