As I said, it was in response to someone who was denying that there was a national speed limit and/or and denying that Congress had the authority to make such a law (basically denying that the Supremacy Clause exists).
The fact that a Wikipedia entry doesn’t cite a source isn’t necessarily proof positive that bias is at work.
I don’t understand why you think I’m under any obligation to find a source. I’m not seeing any suggestion that you’ve put any work into refuting the suggestion other than brainstorming that it is biased in favor of the gas industry or fossil fuels (which doesn’t make sense, maybe a person could argue it’s biased in favor of higher speed limits? still doesn’t make sense).
In the meantime, despite that I have little interest in whether the numbers cited in Wikipedia are dead-on correct or not, in the spirit of “I like the challenge of researching things on the internet” I did find a 1977 GAO report that mentions that gas consumption may not have gone down quite as much as they expected (but hey, posits the same thing I did in a PM… that you shouldn’t expect much of a reduction when people are still speeding). I posted the link below.
Your attempts at intuiting my perspective aren’t working out all that well. I would just stop trying.
actually it is tangential at best to the point of the law being state/federal and has nothing to do with any part of the discussion. I challenged it and you can provide no source. I also riposted on the possible motivations of the quoted doc. As well as yours. You refuse to withdraw an unsupported claim that has nothing to do with the state/fed interaction whatsoever
What is tangential to “the point of the law being state/federal” and what does the latter part even mean?
As I said previously, the discussion about whether a national speed limit had supremacy over state speed limits is relevant to federal legalization and state cannabis laws. Tangential, for sure, but still relevant.
I also provided you with a source, the 1977 GAO report. Much like the guy who seemed to be arguing that the Supremacy Clause is something a person can take or leave you seem to be making a lot of arguments while providing no actual support for your claims.
You also seem to be completely incapable of accepting that I was making no claim about the effectiveness of the NMSL in one direction or another. I was merely pointing out that such a law existed (and in a separate post provided a number of sources supporting that the NMSL was constitutional).
Posting a link to a Wikipedia article about a once existent federal law, for the purposes of supporting that the law existed, is not spreading misinformation. Full stop. I’m trying to remain civil, but you’re completely out of line.
I drove a cab for a few years and on occasion the garage would randomly change the rules about who got a cab on busy days… more than once I talked the guy behind the window’s ear off to the point where he said “Okay, okay, professor” and shoved keys at me.
Crush the black market they been trying to do that for over 50 years…and as far as we know cannabis has been around for like 5-10 thousand years…wtf are they thinking
And Smart meters…
A smart meter knows what kind of lights you have when you run them, for how long and how many watts they use.
Someone was saying there won’t be any new charges and the penalties would be less if feds legaize.
You can see here it is happening all around and this trend will most likely continue.
