Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."
The notion that "provide for the general Welfare is a grant of power has been debunked so thoroughly and so often here I'm surprised you even tried that.
...and the commerce clause, since very few products are produced and consumed within a single state and no other.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
James Madison had this to say about the Commerce Clause:
"For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged."
Given that, if this is a valid exercise of the Commerce Power within it's intended purpose there should be some manner of injustice that the existence of e-cigarettes has or will cause to be visited on one state by another, which banning them will remedy or prevent.
If any such injustice exists, I'm at a loss to see what it is.
James Madison was our Pericles but where is he when we truly need him????????????????
If Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution has, in fact, been debunked, I am not aware of it. The general welfare clause is, in fact, a recognition of the duty of the government to protect its citizens against those who would do them harm.
Given that, if this is a valid exercise of the Commerce Power within it's intended purpose there should be some manner of injustice that the existence of e-cigarettes has or will cause to be visited on one state by another, which banning them will remedy or prevent.
Regulating is not banning. Regulating means that manufacturers have to comply with health, quality, and safety standards. People buying e-cigs should not be subjected to, for example, the devices exploding and blinding them because they were badly engineered and made with poor-quality components.
E-cigs are sold across state and international borders, which places regulating them in the purview of the federal government, rather than state governments.
There are many problems with the libertarian view that the FDA should be abolished. One of them is the belief that the market can somehow guarantee product safety through the actions of injured customers suing manufacturers of faulty products. Why wait until injuries occur? Why not make sure the product conforms to standards so that people do *not* get hurt? Another is the implied belief that doing away with the FDA would stop product regulations. It would not. The states would take over that function, and then regulations would be all over the place, ranging from so strict that almost nothing can meet the standards, to so lax that they almost don't exist. Or the standards in one state could contradict the standards in another. The burden on manufacturers to make products that comply with 50 different regulatory standards would be huge, and many manufacturers could decide not to sell in certain states because of the costs associated with conforming to their standards.
In case you missed it: Regulation is not banning. Regulation is about making sure products meet certain safety and quality standards.