Source: http://www.annalsofhealthlaw.com/annalsofhealthlaw/vol_23_issue_2?pg=40
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:26:56+00:00

Document:
late in areas that do not at first glance appear to trigger interstate commerce, such as the local manufacture and consumption of a product consistent with state law. 66 Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity as long as such activity has a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce when considered in the aggregate. 67 Commerce authority can thus be used to ban products from commerce, either through direct legislation or agency rulings or regulations.
66. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942); Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
67. Congress is authorized to regulate non-economic local activity if the regulation is “a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce.” Gonzales, 545 U.S. at 37 (citing United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561 (1995)).
68. U.S. CONST. art. 1 § 8.
69. Lawrence O. Gostin, Public Health Theory and Practice in the Constitutional Design, 11 HEALTH MATRIX 265, 273 (2001).
70. For example, the Affordable Care Act provides financial incentives for workplace wellness programs. Laura Anderko et al., Promoting Prevention Through the Affordable Care Act: Workplace Wellness, 9 PREVENTING CHRONIC DISEASE E175 (2012). Congress continues to raise taxes on cigarettes, which significantly curbs the average consumer’s ability to purchase them. K. J. Meier & M. J. Licari, The Effect of Cigarette Taxes on Cigarette Consumption, 1955 through 1994, 87 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 1126 (1997) (finding increased taxes on cigarettes are associated with less tobacco consumption); see also Prabhat Jha & Richard Peto, Global Effects of Smoking, of Quitting, and of Taxing Tobacco, 370 N. ENGL. J. MED. 60 (2014).
71. Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2602 (2012) (“Congress may use its spending power to create incentives for States to act in accordance with federal policies. But when ‘pressure turns into compulsion’ . . . the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism.”).
72. S. D. v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 211-12 (1987). Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984, which withheld five percent of federal highway funding from states that did not maintain a minimum legal drinking age of twenty-one. 23 U.S. C. A. § 158 (West, WestlawNext through Pub. L. No. 113-93 (excluding Pub. L. No. 113-79) approved Apr. 1, 2014).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 1
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 § 158