It is my "thought" that the Supreme court decision
on the California vs.. Federal marijuana law is wrong in two areas. As I am not a law person, this thought is based on my ideas of right-ness and not law.
1) I personally think that the extension of the Congress’ Commerce Clause should not be extended to the commerce totally within a state even if it can be rationalized as somewhat effecting the flow of products between states. We see how this leads to the stretching of the national law into the area that one would logically think is the state's domain, and that our federal society would be better served if the federal government did not impose itself in the states affairs except perhaps where the state is restricting people's rights further than the constitution permits.
2) Secondarily, the use of the commerce clause to control activity within the state where the interstate activity is ILLEGAL seems even more a stretch. If one is to reject the general argument "1)" that it would be better if the federal government only controlled interstate commerce, then it seems reasonable that the federal goverment only has the right to control activity within a state where the activity leads to an increased violation of the interstate law. On the other hand, the California law, if properly enforced, will, if anything decrease the amount of illegal interstate traffic and thus assist the federal government in reducing the flow of illegal interstate drugs.
Thus, it seems to me that both on
a) general considerations, The commerce clause should not be extended to activities within the state that have only minor effects on interstate commerse, and on a
b) specific condition, that the California mariuana law may well decrease the illegal flow of mariuana, the Supreme court
"got it wrong"