"You're essentially claiming that the need to prove an effect is removed once something is enshrined into law"

This is a gross misinterpretation bordering on trolling. I'm not sure how you could even come to this position.

Please show me how what I've actually said is illogical and dangerous. Please remember that in the scenario we are talking about neither side has provided evidence one way or the other. Somebody would need to provide evidence one way or the other to shift the status quo, as shifting that requires flipping the convictions of the population, or at least the leaders.