You say that like interstate commerce regulation was more egregious for wheat than it was for marijuana.
replyBut Raich is significantly more egregious: the theory on which the government won Wickard v. Filburn, that private consumption of wheat could affect the interstate market for wheat, doesn't even apply, because there can be no interstate market in a substance that is illegal to trade.
>there can be no interstate market in a substance that is illegal to trade.
replyThere is in fact an interstate market in many substances that are illegal to trade because laws against things do not make those things fail to exist.
No market that the federal government can recognize, tax or regulate
replyIllegal commerce is still subject to taxation and regulation, famously so in the case of Al Capone.
replyLegally subject to. Practically, untaxed.
replyBy making it illegal, it has already been regulated. The IRS also requires reporting and taxing all income, even that which was unlawfully gained.
replyThe reason marijuana is Federally illegal in the first place is because the commerce clause is interpreted to allow it.
reply