Wheat and dope...the same thing?

For my Constitutional Law class (referred to as Con Law in the legal world, although I think the term "Con Law" should refer to case law used to fry child molesters and other criminals), I have a very liberal professor that may or may not have enjoyed toking back on a few doobies back in her day. One day during class we were discussing a recent case involving legalized prescriptions for medical use of marijuana in the state of California. The Supreme Court Justices referred to the substance by its scientific name: cannabis. The professor said, "So, how do the rights to regulate interstate commerce by Congress apply to this case involving 'Can-uh-beece'?" She said, "Did I say that right?" The knowledgeable chiefers in class said, "No. It's Can-uh-bis." She said, "I would of known that if I was your age." Well thanks, you just provided us a little insight into your younger college days.

On another note, the opinion delivered by the Court was quite interesting in how it came to the conclusion that Congress has the power to restrict the growth and manufacture of medical marijuana for personal uses since it has an impact on interstate commerce. The Constitution provides Congress with the power to enact legislation to regulate practices that affect interstate commerce (commerce among the many states). In general, Congress does not have the power to regulate commerce in a purely local sense...meaning that the individual States have the power regulate commerce within their own borders. Once something crosses a state line, however, Congress may step in (it's not that simple, but you get my drift). The Court reasoned that the federal government had an interest to regulate marijuana among the many states and in doing so the government may enact legislation intended to limit the effect of personal marijuana growth as it may have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. The primary interest that the government seeks to protect is to prevent the distribution of marijuana across state borders being that it's a Schedule I drug (maybe I have the classification wrong, but who cares) on the controlled substance list. Allowing many people to grow it in their own home would substantially affect the government's ability to regulate the distribution and use of marijuana.

Another interesting case that applies the same reasoning is an old case involving the production of wheat by individual farmers. Back in the day, Congress sought to limit the wheat production to keep the price of wheat from dwindling away. In doing so, Congress imposed limits on the amount of wheat an individual farmer could produce. The farmer involved in the case produced more than his fair share. He claimed that the additional wheat was for private consumption and to be used for seeding next year's crop in addition to a few other uses. The Supreme Court held that Congress had a right to regulate his additional growth of wheat for several reasons. One of the reasons was that his private consumption stash would need to be bought in commerce if he wasn't growing it.

I think the reasoning in the marijuana case is well-founded. Maybe I'm biased because I think pot-heads should find another past-time. On the other hand, I think the holding in the second case is a crock-of-b.s. I understand the reasoning, but why shouldn't a farmer be able to grow additional crops for home consumption and seeding for next year's crop?
Why should he have to purchase something that is completely legal and grown on his own land? In what other profession would one compare the production of marijuana to the production of wheat? I don't know much about wheat, but last time I checked, no one was smoking it at Woodstock.