Gonzales v. Raich

If Catholic legal theory has anything to say about the outcome of today's ruling in the medical marijuana case, I assume that it derives from the principle of subsidiarity.  The Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to trump states' authority to allow the medical use of marijuana.  In dissent, Justice Thomas writes:

[N]either in enacting the [federal statute] nor in defending its application to respondents has the Government offered any obvious reason why banning medical marijuana use is necessary to stem the tide of interstate drug trafficking. Congress's goal of curtailing the interstate drug trade would not plainly be thwarted if it could not apply the CSA to patients like Monson and Raich. That is, unless Congress's aim is really to exercise police power of the sort reserved to the States in order to eliminate even the intrastate possession and use of marijuana.

Is there any interpretation of subsidiarity that would favor giving power to the federal government in this context?  Does a state's approval of the medical use of marijuana represent a breakdown in the proper norms or acceptable outcomes of democratic deliberation so as to favor the higher collective authority stepping in?

Rob