3 ms·
True, and it's been elaborated elsewhere that these have already been tested in the supreme court. But you have to admit that without that precedent, it does se
by smcl 4y ago
True, and it's been elaborated elsewhere that these have already been tested in the supreme court. But you have to admit that without that precedent, it does seem a little bit cheeky - "oh the law says I can't do X, well it doesn't say I can't simply not do inverse(X)" :)
- brookst 4y agoFor a funny / not funny example, see the attempts to ban analogs of illegal drugs. The whole research chemical thing is a result of the need to legislate exactly what’s illegal.