Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
It's a perfectly reasonable comparison if you actually make the comparison intended.
The presumption in law is, or at least will be, that all psychoactive substances are banned unless explicitly permitted.
If the government can operate on that premise for those it seems fair to ask why they can't state that all tax 'efficiencies' are illegal unless explicitly stated otherwise and to ask how someone can support the apparent discrepancy in the treatment of the two.
|
No it's not ,we are talking about tax law not matters of health in society .It's ridiculous to suggest that the application of law deciding what will or will not harm society is remotely the same as tax law.
---------- Post added at 11:37 ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stop It
Yes it is valid, and I don't understand why you disagree with that?
|
No it's not,i will elaborate.
In reply to my statement of ".
You really can't blame people for doing something that was legal"
Hero replied "Exactly"
You then commented "so you approve of legal highs then".
In the context of this thread abiding by tax law is all that matters, morality has no bearing .If it is legal then anybody can avail themselves of the benefits of abiding by the law ,only when it has been determined that a certain scheme is illegal do people have to stop using it .
If we where discussing the pros and cons of drug abuse then your comment would have validity.