[...] my point is that no true conservative can voice support for unconstitutional laws.
When you come here and protest against those other laws, and put your full efforts into getting them repealed too,
I'm aware of no other issue where a significant portion of FReepers support clearly unconstitutional laws.
You love to throw around the 'clearly unconsititonal' term. In certain circumstances, I am inclined to agree with your assessment. Let's be truthful about it though. None of these laws have been taken to the SCOTUS and proven to be what you say they are.
No real conservative would imply that the SCOTUS, which has given us Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas, is a valid test for constitutionality.
I don't care in the slightest about my credibility with you - that's a transparent attempt to avoid addressing my points (as quoted at the beginning of this post).
If you don't care about your credibility with me, why are you still trying to beat this dead horse? Why would you even respond to my comments about your credibility if you didn't care about my take on your credibility?
To note that your raising that non-issue was a transparent attempt to avoid addressing my points.
Okay, lets address your comments at the beginning of this post.
Nothing you've written addresses my comments at the beginning of this post.
Look at what you posted above. Please point out to me even one SPECIFIC law that you disagree with. I don't think you can do it. You tossed out the complete Welfare State as an example of specific law. Thats about as precise as naming the Titanic when you're asked to provide a specific case of improper care of violyns.
If you're not willing to be specific, how can you sit there typing away saying you have already shown me what other laws you disagree with?
This is the first time you've shown any interest in specificity - you have made a number of vague references such as "a myriad of laws on the books that are similar to its drug laws", that's what you asked if I agreed with, and that's what I did voice agreement with. This "be specific" red herring is another of your transparent attempts to avoid addressing my points (as quoted at the beginning of this post).
Please link me to where you first admitted that other laws with the same status as our 'Drug' laws existed