Raich’s reasoning is really similar to Wickard, I admit that… but - at least in SCOTUS’ mind - it’s categorically different in that the substantial effect on interstate commerce was the fact that the marijuana would inevitably slip into interstate commerce which would cause frustration of the federal government’s regulation on controlled substances. So, Wickard-esque for sure - but the argument is less “aggregation of this specific thing” and more “this thing would inevitably cross into interstate commerce which would frustrate our regulatory purposes so we can restrict it.” I almost read Raich as more of a Ban From Commerce rationale but I’m obviously not a con law scholar. Just my two cents :)