I did and it had little or no content related to marijuana its about wheat and prices. After skimming it over, its about federal power to extert power over crops. That decision has almost NOTHING to do with marijuana. The cole memo is explicit for the regulation of marijuana within a legalized state. Wickard v. Filburn is about WHEAT not weed. Its comparing apples to oranges. But the power to regulate commerce is already explained in the cole memo, so its redundant to mention Wickard v. Filburn... Total waste of my time to read it.
The info I mentioned is constantly referenced by several attorneys on the marijuana control board. I dont consider you an actual attorney, so in my mind they are the authority, not you and your wikipedia reference. I'm merely repeating how how _legal_ state run marijuana is and what directives they are working under. I attend the public hearings the board meetings so I have an actual reference to go by.
In my opinion, the legal states are somewhat in conflict with federal laws, but allowances and carveouts have been given. And the state understands there are strict guidelines they have to follow.
Anyways, you are speculating on _IF_ the president decides to change legalization, there should be enough checks and balances in congress to reverse his decision.