Point taken, rp; what was I thinking in debating what you actually did say? The thing is, I'm more comfortable debating things that have actually been said, and am not too sure how to do otherwise.
"Now if, as you postulate, there is no ill effect"
Oh, now I see. You merely assert that your opponent said something through a misleading accusation, and then debate the false point.
Thanks for the intro to straw-man debating. Is this really the way you wish to debate? Seems kinda worthless to me.
And I'm more comfortable with people who correctly interpret what I say. I restated it to clarify what I said, not change what I said.
"Oh, now I see. You merely assert that your opponent said something through a misleading accusation, and then debate the false point."
What are you whining about now? Your question was, "Are you really contending that a ban would be within their rights even if no ill effect can be shown to actually exist?". You didn't say there was no ill effect. You postulated "IF there is no ill effect". So I responded that "... if ...there is no ill effect, the citizens may question the legislature as to the purpose of this law and make their voices known."
Tell me again about these straw men.