Yep. They can prevent growing your own wheat (in large quantity) because it impacts interstate wheat markets. You can literally bend this to apply to anything on that logic.

it feels kind of inconsistent. prior to roe being overturned the governments were able to regulate abortion to some extent. i assume some abortion medical procedures required a licensed doctor and i assume abortion medicine was regulated by the FDA. but at the same time the government was limited in how it could restrict abortion and this was justified by some privacy right which somehow didn't apply to the FDA regulation of abortion or medical licensing related to abortion. also, this same privacy right couldn't be invoked to allow you to take other medicines you might want. if you look at the arguments made in Roe v Wade I'm pretty sure you could claim you are taking recreational drugs as part of your marital sex routine and therefore this right to privacy should be extended to these drugs. i think if you honestly extended the general principal of roe v wade then a let of laws would be unconstitutional.

And if you're not engaged in any sort of commerce? Just hanging out on your own land consuming what you grew for yourself, like carrots?

Believe it or not, also interstate commerce.

Seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Doesn’t work if it’s produced, distributed, and consumed entirely in a single state.

> Doesn’t work if it’s produced, distributed, and consumed entirely in a single state.

No, according to the Supreme Court, it's interstate commerce if a butterfly bats its wings and the resulting hurricane causes someone to buy a raincoat in another state.

IIRC, the actual case involved someone growing wheat their own land that they didn't even plan to sell. But since wheat was sold in interstate commerce, the court said any activity involving involving wheat could be regulated as interstate commerce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich says otherwise.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454

> The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market.

Incorrect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn