Again, if you'll read with precision, I didn't argue that drug laws were "null and void" for
any reason, I argued they should be
overturned and removed because they were unConstitutional, which is a very different argument.
I believe that they are
arguably unConstitutional and will be adjudged to be so
at some time in the future. I also believe that that argument is valid and can be cogently made based on available evidence and historical analysis of the Constitutional intent of the founding fathers. As far as my view goes, drug laws are not only unConstitutional (based on my and others take on existing evidence and history) but they are
also, based on examples of current law enforcement and judicial efforts, poorly written and impossible to effectively enforce without
further Constitutional violations. Those are two very separate arguments against them with different evidence and supports. One on Constitutional grounds and one on practical.
Asserting that there is a valid argument with demonstrably valid evidence for or against something is utterly different from making a baseless assertion such as
Greek and Roman civilizations were invented by the monks in the middle ages, or that the Jews were an African tribe, or any hundreds of nonsensical idiotic theories
. You can disagree with me and all the other folks who believe an argument is cogent and valid, but you cheapen your own credibility and character by resorting to such idiotic and childish analogies and straw man assertions based on actual misreading of your opponents statements, or, in this case, statements they never in fact made nor implied.
At least adhere to common principles of logic and debate so we can talk like grown-ups.
As far as immigration laws go, I believe, again in concert with other credible intellectual and legal minds both professional and amateur, that there is sufficient evidence to support an assertion that they,
unlike drug laws,
are in fact Constitutional and will be adjudged so when challenged, or, at least, are appropriate and allowable under the Constitution for the several states to enact on their own. I also believe, based on the successes of several state and local level efforts, that such laws are, in fact,
not "unworkable" if properly enforced. Again, two very different basis for my position, one of Constitutionality and one of practicality. There is more than enough difference and nuance in the reasoning I use for both arguments (drug and immigration) that they are patently not contradictory in any way, regardless of your sophisticated "yes they ARE!" counter.
Again, you may disagree with my position an any number of things, but the mere fact you disagree does not make my argument either
logically invalid or
intellectually untenable regardless if it is actually
correct or not.
You can be objectively wrong and still have a valid, internally consistant and supportable argument, that's Logic 101.