Here is an article on the issue.
I guess I’m just not a “Big Government” kind of guy.
I love incans, but I'm switching to led because I like the tints and I like the efficiency. Don't care about the government much. None of 'em are doing anything I agree with on either side. R&D both haven't got a clue and aren't on the same page with my reality. Same everywhere in the world, it will never change, but since I'm switching anyhow, it doesn't matter much.
I personally think incans have their own merit in a traditional sense.
The technical aspects follow as well, such as 100 CRI and having a warm tint.
I think most of us are weary of our electrical bills that we choose to phase them out, instead of being forced to.
I have been slowly switching to LED. I think I have 6 standard size LED bulbs now, and 2 on my vanity lights in the bathroom. I have about a dozen more I need to get to be all LED in my house, not counting the basement or outside lights.
When the CFLs were the hot item, I hated them. Slow to light up, sucks for outside lights up here in ME, and they usually had crappy colors. They never lasted their rated lifespan either
"Whatever those people are for, I'm against! And if they are against something, it's probably awesome!"
By force, it’s even hard to put shoes on.
Carlos.
Yeah, but I had already switched to nearly 100% CFL use before the banning of incans was even an issue. I switched over since I like the reduced electric bill x2; Long/hot summers in Texas means an incan puts 98% of that energy back into heat that must then be air conditioned back out again... Double-savings for more than six months of the year... Less during winter of course, but 100W of heat is 100W of heat regardless of the source.
Unlike some, I've had great luck with CFLs lasting much longer than incans. Warmup time usually isn't an issue for me either. Incan bulbs definitely have their places (put in cold locations to keep pipes from freezing, outdoor porch lights where they see infrequent use and harsh weather conditions.
Now, I'm playing with a lot of LED bulbs, but that's not for efficiency, since there isn't much difference between the CFL and LED tech. At current prices, I wouldn't pay for the differnece by using LED bulbs instead of the CFL tech. I like LEDs since they do run cooler, and start up automatically, but I haven't had them long enough to test those "Million-Year lifetime" claims. 
That said, I have some gear on the way from DX for building a few bulbs of my own to play with different wattages/configurations... Just a hobby, but I will get some good out of it in the long run.
I don't like being told what I can/can't do... and the ban has actually caused EXTRA power use in some instances... The ban specifically kills the standard medium-base bulb... So ceiling fan/light fixture manufacturers have switched to using E12 candelabra base fixtures. Now, I want to install LED bulbs, but have a very hard time locating affordable E12 LED bulbs so I have to resort to less efficient incan or much more expensive CFL bulbs! By the government getting involved in the process to force the adoption of more energy-efficient lighting, I'm now forced to use LESS energy efficient sources than I would have without the government's involvement.
I waited for years for the led bulbs getting good enough. Then last year I replaced all bulbs that get a lot of use in the house with led bulbs, costed us 120 euro's, but it will pay back in a few years. The quality of lighting in the house has improved I think, because I put a bit more than usual thought in what bulb to put where (after all, they will last for a little while).
LOL. So 1st world.
I dunno but the energy bulbs cfl is it give me headaches, not sure if its the pwm or what.
I'm with you OP. The .gov's energy policy should be the same as their toaster policy. Just leave us be to make our own decisions.
Where does it say you can't use them?
Well you can use them if you have them. basically sales of them have been banned. I do find it strange that you can get Halogen versions of the 100 watt bulbs and such which they have deemed o.k. Halogens burn just as hot so I do not really get the point except they claim to use a bit less energy than the normal incan.
So why did George Bush (a Republican) sign this into law?
Republicans just like to oppose something because Democrats support it, and its interesting that light manufacturers support the law, one could argue that this law is business friendly, it is giving those with power even more power just like republicans seem to be mandated to do.
I do disagree with banning incandescents, one could just tax them and use the proceeds to subsidize CFLs and other efficient lighting.
I also think if CFLs were invented by Edison and if incandescent came out today, we would see the same pitchforks and crying we see over CFLs today. Keep in mind incandescent has negatives as well, high energy consumption, high heat production, fewer colour options, less life, more IR and UV output (though people claim CFLs and LEDs are giving them sunburn and cancer), more mercury emitted into the atmosphere by coal burning plants, and so forth. But since we are used to them we gloss over their negatives, claim they are the holy grail and vilify what we don’t like.
I also have gripes with CFLs, they break easily, they need a few minutes to hit full brightness, they are hard to dispose of properly, to get full life they have to be used for hours each time they are turned on, if used in a washroom or hallway with constant on/off they will last as long as incandescent for many times the price. But like incandescent people will get used to its quirks in time, just like our ancestors did with incandescent. I use exclusively CFL around here, i like saving money that i barely have any of, but if they could be redesigned to last many more starts so you get the 6000-8000 hours in constant on/off uses that would be great.
I do hope LED technology progresses to higher levels and decent prices, but again i bet people will complain that its giving them cancer, inviting aliens to earth, giving them allergies and can be broken with hammers and crowbars, but we seem to forget what we have today is not perfect either, we have no permanent storage for nuclear waste, hundred year weather phenomenons seem to have every 5 years, antibiotic resistance is becoming a major concern, energy prices keep going up and up, pollution and deadly disasters seem to be happening more and more frequently.
Of course you all know that incandescent light is the healthiest for our eyes? Not only because of warm tint and high CRI but also because the light is constant (no PWM) with smooth spectrum and lacks unhealthy short wavelengths or incredibly toxic mercury. And for that reason alone I want to pay higher electricity bill.
Thank you. We haven't been banned from using it. I saw some rumors of them being permitted if they were sold as heaters. I don't know if that's true, and how many retailers will do that if it is true, but we'll know soon enough.
As far as halogen bulbs, it's about energy usage as you said. They're still ~100% CRI, so at least it's an option for those that need it, and it's a good thing the option is available because it'll still probably be a few years before there are bright LED bulbs with the same CRI.
There will be some short term pain during the transition period, but this has been coming for a long time. Folks should have stock piled the old bulbs. Many people did.
Incandescent lights do put out some level of 120 Hz PWM, and can spew quite a bit of UV light (particularly halogens). My MR16 halogen fixtures had UV filters on them and warnings printed about UV. Also, art galleries cringe when they see them shining of expensive goodies.
CFL lights are well known for their UV output and 50/120 Hz flicker. CFL bulbs contain mercury which is ionized to produce UV light which is used to excite the phosphor. Cheap (and some not so cheap) bulbs may not filter out the UV light. Lab tests have shown some CFL bulbs produce dangerous levels of OV light.
LED bulbs have virtually no output in the UV and IR spectrum and decent ones produce light that is indistinguishable from incandescent bulbs without using some fancy test equipment…
There's no conceptual difference between banning the production and banning the use - either action violates our rights to voluntarily trade. Just because 51% believe incadescents are bad doesn't mean they should be able to stop the other 49% from using them. Does no one uphold the virtues of a free market anymore?
Thats a fine argument, but does the 49% have the solution to extra nuclear waste disposal, or the 20% (wild guess) higher electricity costs in the future by usage of more energy at higher prices that will be made higher by more demand that has to be borne by people who are using the CFLs?
Again i am not arguing in favour of the ban, i am saying that consequences are not just personal, i think they should not be banned, but i do understand the point of it, i just think banning is a silly solution and better ones are available
The difference is literal, but go ahead and strip words of their meaning and apply hyperbole instead.