More pot talk, this from the majority, which upheld the Federal ban on pot:

"As we stated in Wickard [v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 128?129 (1942)], ?even if appellee?s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.? Id., at 125. We have never required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude. When Congress decides that the total incidence? ? of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See Perez, 402 U. S., at 154?155 (quoting Westfall v. United States, 274 U. S. 256, 259 (1927) (?[W]hen it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so?)). In this vein, we have reiterated that when ? ?a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence.? ? E.g., Lopez, 514 U. S., at 558 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196, n. 27 (1968))."

So basically they are saying that Congress can decide that anything "exerts a substantial economic effect on insterstate commerce" jsut because they woke up that day and decided it did. The Supreme Court has, in effect, said that Congress can make laws on any damn thing they want with absolutely no restrictions. The majority judges may not think of it like that, but rest assured some day a Senator will take advantage of it and suddenly Congress wil have even more power over our everyday lives.