So you shift the topic around, and then complain that I didn't respond to your non-response to my first comment. Why don't you reply to the issues I set forth the first time, which are listed again below?
They didn't need or institute a huge federal government, nor did they even bother to outlaw most drugs, nor did they have endless taxes, regulations, etc. And they certainly didn't feel the need to strictly restrict immigration, or require licenses and permits to do just about anything. Nor did they have many laws related to gun control. You could even own your own fighting ship armed with cannon as good as those on the US Navy frigates of the time.
As to your question of whether states can have laws regarding the topics of interest to you, yes, of course they can if those laws are consistent with the Federal constitution and the relevant state's constitution.
Whether or not they should have such laws is pretty much a question for the voters of those states. Personally speaking I think moral behavior comes from the character of the individuals in society, and in a free society the law ends up reflecting the values agreed upon by the people as a whole. Thus one would expect the people in different states to have different ideas about what their laws should be.
Trying to impose morality by law is a fruitless endeavor, unless you want to have a tyrannical government. That is why it is so important to leave room in society for and encourage the institutions, like churches and the family, which inculcate moral values in the young. Letting government take over that role is a recipe for disaster, as can be seen by looking at the neighborhoods and social groups where the influence of government is greatest.
Giving government the power to involve itself with and control everyone's daily life is a very bad idea. While it may seem that the moral viewpoint you hold could be promoted by government, in the end that is unlikely to happen. For a government to remain in power it must promote viewpoints that attain widespread support, which means setting standards lower and lower, or more inclusively, to gain support. So it is government that promotes "anything goes" since that is as effective a technique for gaining votes as is the "you'll get it for free" approach.
Once an expansive government like ours adopts a new moral viewpoint it then enforces that viewpoint on everyone. Which is why you see inns owned by devout Christians in Vermont who don't want to host a gay wedding being sued by the State of Vermont.
Reducing the scope and size of government leaves room for different viewpoints and lets people live by the moral codes they have learned through their churches and families without interference. Those beliefs, proven over centuries, are better able to be taught and learned in a society where the government is not able to oppose them in every aspect of daily life.
I don't play games. I don't deceive, dissemble or use duplicity. I didn't even read your comment, I just added your name since the person I was responding to was responding to you. I will read you entire referenced comment and this one later when I have time.