Tobacco Regulation Research Paper

A national standard for tobacco regulation is more important than allowing states to set their own standards for tobacco regulation.
Tobacco use has been proven to be an addictive carcinogen and therefore its regulation should be viewed as a natural rights issue because it threatens the health and safety of the individuals protected under the constitution of the united states. Tobacco use and regulation is a moral issue. 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
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 achieved through the consensus of the largest portion of our society.
State laws and regulations can be independent of federal influence and stare decisis when laws and regulation are considered malum pro habitum, that is when the population at large deems the issue non relevant to inherent moral and ethical consequence. For example our federal government could not allow a state to deem vehicular
It is both an ethical and financial set of regulations. While it may be unethical to build a topless bar five hundred feet from a high school, it is not unethical to build a Walmart in the proximity of an affluent residential area, even though building the Walmart would have a detrimental effect on the property values of the homes in that neighborhood. Therefore zoning regulations exist to protect the moral well being of a society as well as the commercial enterprises of private and public pursuits. When Congress enacted the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965, it had two objectives. The first was to inform the public as to the health risks associated with tobacco use. The second was to protect the national economy from any effects that would result from the fifty states allowing tobacco companies to present tobacco products in various forms. Congress did not enact any laws stipulating zoning regulations. This was more of a first amendment debate than a zoning restriction. Congress passed labeling restrictions and deemed themselves as the supreme law. They did not limit the freedom of expression nor did they infringe upon states rights to regulate commerce. They merely imposed a standard and uniform way of presenting tobacco products to the