[zdragnar]

So long as Wickard v. Filburn remains precedent, it is really quite settled. The only question is if it will be enforced. Since the states had voted to legalize it, it is obviously politically unpopular to clamp down on them, but they will likely continue to make the operational aspects of these business very difficult (banking, credit card processing, etc).

[rootusrootus]

> Wickard v. Filburn

At the risk of exposing just how much I am not a lawyer, doesn't that decision rely on the interpretation that the farmer's activities did have a plausible effect on the wider market? Wouldn't that be a tougher sell in the case of cannabis, where there is no national market?

> remains precedent

The current Supreme Court really seems willing to toss aside precedent. I wonder what direction they'd go on this issue.

[zdragnar]

In the case, the farmer was growing wheat for his own personal use. The justification was that by growing his own, he was opting out of the market, and therefore his actions fell under the commerce clause.

In the case of cannabis, these are literal businesses engaging in the act of buying and selling. Illinois and probably other states differentiate the amount that can be sold to a customer depending on whether or not they are residents or from a different state.

The notion of national market versus not is a red herring; markets are concepts, not tangible things, and the concept exists independent of the government itself. Making something illegal doesn't stop the sale of it, otherwise there would be no point in the DEA existing.

As for the supreme court, one can hope.

[Redoubts]

This was tested, specifically about weed, in 2005

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