[int_19h]

Wickard was still ultimately about a restriction on personal consumption. "But he participated in commerce otherwise" is a distraction - who of us doesn't, when you get down to it? When it comes to weed grown for private consumption, it could be argued to affect one's participation in the labor market; i.e. one's ability to sell one's labor - or, perhaps, the quality and/or quantity of that labor.

Besides, why even focus on selling in the first place? The Commerce Clause doesn't make a distinction between selling and buying, so if participating in the market as a seller is enough to put any activity that affects your supply within scope, then why wouldn't participating in the market as a buyer do so just the same for any activity that affects your demand?

You're claiming that it didn't readily follow - but, well, if it wasn't until Raichs that anybody even tried seriously challenging that notion in court, then it sounds like it did readily follow in practice.