The essence of this decision was Federal policy in the Great Depression was to control wheat production to stop overproduction and the below-cost prices that resulted. The court decided that a farmer growing wheat for his own use was still within the jurisdiction of the commerce clause as that production would result in that farmer not purchasing wheat. That wheat that wasn't purchased would in turn affect interstates wheat sales and thus fell under the Commerce Clause.
To me, this is a ridiculous example of judicial overreach as it basically covers everything and in an ideal world SCOTUS would overturn that precedent.
So the Gonzalez decision just continues that earlier interpretation and gives the Federal government sweeping powers for what reasonable people might otherwise agree are state issues.
Interestingly, I just looked up the Gonzalez decision [2] and I think I've found possibly the only Thomas opinion I've ever agreed with. He dissents:
> Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Somewhat surprising (at least to me), Scalia concurred with the majority opinion although wrote separate reasoning for it.
Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who is also a medical doctor, asked, “If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, ‘Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day,’ and I got it through Congress and it’s now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the commerce clause?”
“Sounds like a dumb law,” Ms. Kagan replied.
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
They believe the constitutionality of enforcing such transactions depends on the details of its application, and is not facially unconstitutional. So if the legislature could be convinced that pot is health supporting, SCOTUS may well find it to be within their power to mandate.
But where does that end? Can Congress prohibit you from earning an income because you might use that income to buy marijuana?
The majority opinion seems to come down to "drugs are bad, anything that stops them is good", which is not how the law is supposed to work.
By flossing regularly you almost certainly impact the interstate commerce in dentures (negatively). Fortunately, no one has come with the idea to limit legal flossing time to 20 seconds a day to protect the denture business. Yet. I hope the Congress does not feel inspired to do so right now.
This explanation, endorsed by the SCOTUS, is so expansive that it is hard to imagine any activity that would still not be covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
This is a legal abomination.