Economic pressures would prevent states from mandating and upholding an unbiased regulation standard when moral issues are the primary concern of the regulation. Legislators may favor laws that promote the economic prosperity of large tobacco companies within their states, small merchants within the municipalities, as well as other peripheral economic entities within their states. For example, it is not illegal to smoke in restaurants and bars in the State of North Carolina. RJ Reynolds provides ashtrays in their elevators. This is a prime example of economics taking precedent over obvious safety concerns.
Federal regulation would ensure an unbiased and non economic motive for legislation. It would also adhere to the equal protection clause, would have preemption and could be readily handled by departments already delegating under the commerce clause.
This is not to argue that states would not have the right to regulate interstate commerce in part but only in areas where tobacco sales are concerned. Federal laws and regulations are based fundamentally on a natural law system where morals and ethics are held as inherent rights to individuals. In any situation where these rights are jeopardized by a positive system of law, be it by an individual or by state commerce, it is the responsibility of our federal government to assume exclusive authority and enact regulation.
Also, it is important to note that ethics and morality are subject to philosophical arbitration. Therefore the only true measure of inherit justification can be...