With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Supreme Court precedents on the Commerce Clause, an effect on interstate commerce is an implicit element that must be pled in the indictment. This challenge to the indictment is without merit. We have long held that' “no proof of an interstate nexus is required in order to establish jurisdiction of the subject matter” in most prosecutions under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). United States v. Montes-Zarate, 552 F.2d 1330, 1331 (9th Cir.1977) (per curiam); see also United States v. Tisor, 96 F.3d 370, 374-75 (9th Cir.1996); United States v. Visman, 919 F.2d 1390, 1393 (9th Cir.1990). While we have recently recognized that certain classes of activities prescribed by the CSA may fall beyond the scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause power, Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1222, 1229, 1233 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2909, 159

A: holding that jurys failure to find the defendant guilty of possession of marijuana could not be reconciled with a verdict of guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to purchase
B: holding  1130 to be unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff
C: holding that the csa may be unconstitutional as applied to the intrastate noncommercial cultivation possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician
D: holding that congress may regulate the intrastate noncommercial cultivation possession and use of marijuana as an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme
C.