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.
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.