You mean “affect”, not “effect”.
And if “affecting” something is the criteria for regulation, then you have justified totalitarianism because everything “affects” everything else.
The slippery slope of the Interstate Commerce Clause to encompass everything that “affects” interstate commerce, as claimed by the Supreme Court in Wickard v Filburn (1942), is exactly what has led to all federal regulation, as well as the “War on Drugs”, the war on smoking, the war on fat and on and on.
You cannot subscribe to the regulation of secondary “effects” and be a “conservative” of any kind.
When these are left to states, you have the freedom to pick your poison by where you live without being obliged to leave the country or, indeed, be chased by American law enforcement in other countries for things you do that are legal there and have our government pressure them to change their laws.
affect [v. uh-fekt; n. af-ekt] Origin af·fect 1 /v. əˈfɛkt; n. ˈæfɛkt/ Show Spelled[v. uh-fekt; n. af-ekt] Show IPA verb (used with object) 1. to act on; produce an effect or change in: Cold weather affected the crops. 2. to impress the mind or move the feelings of: The music affected him deeply. 3. (of pain, disease, etc.) to attack or lay hold of. effect [ih-fekt] Origin ef·fect /ɪˈfɛkt/ Show Spelled[ih-fekt] Show IPA noun 1. something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence: Exposure to the sun had the effect of toughening his skin. 2. power to produce results; efficacy; force; validity; influence: His protest had no effect. 3. the state of being effective or operative; operation or execution; accomplishment or fulfillment: to bring a plan into effect. 4. a mental or emotional impression produced, as by a painting or a speech. 5. meaning or sense; purpose or intention: She disapproved of the proposal and wrote to that effect