Again, facts are generally supported (or not) by evidence, not by logical proof, so there is no proof to confirm that “smoking crack in the US is illegal” and there is no means to disprove it either. LOL.
Moreover, I accept that it is a fact, so why would I try to disprove it even if there was a means to do so? How would that do anything for me? The issue isn’t to prove or disprove or support or disconfirm a fact. We both agree that its a fact. The issue is that you imagine that facts are objective, and I recognize that they are subjective.
I’ve laid out quite a few points each of which speaks to the fact that facts are subjective. You’ve offered no counter-argument to any of them.
Facts and theories go hand-in-hand, but you seem to be confused about which is which. A theory is an answer to a question, especially an answer to a causal or explanatory question, and it is an answer understood in a particular way, i.e. as forever probationary and subject to validation. A statement that there was a thing called a Brontosaurus, or that Pluto is a planet is not an explanation or causal argument, not even a prediction. These are mere statements, and to the extent that each was once broadly recognized as a true statement, they were once facts. Theories relate concepts, and are subject to testing. They thus require facts. Conversely, the ability to recognize something as a fact generally requires at least an implicit or outline of a theory. In this way facts also depend on theories.