what the supremes never talked about, was my argument. :rastasmoke: in the 1930's ruling on wheat it was assumed that the gov't had a right to force a state to purchase a certain crop from other states and, under some ag bill, it did have that right. In the recent case against the people of California, there is no law that requires a state to purchase cannabis from another state or anywhere else. The only "interstate commerce" that is affected is black market commerce. This case ruled that the state of California had no right to allow it citizens to grow their own because it would interfere with interstate black market commerce.

if you look at the big picture from Gun Walker to all the rest this seems to be exactly what is going on to me. :twocents: