If it can be shown that the banning of conventional bulbs in favor of CFL bulbs produces some good for the COMMUNITY, then NOT to mandate such a change would be the actions of an irresponsible government.
That statement is true of course. What is just as true is that sometimes legislators pass laws that are more flawed than necessary.
One of the responsibilities of citizens in a representative form of government is to vote. Another responsibility is to discuss with your peers the laws that your government enacts. The next step is support those laws, or try to have them rescinded.
This is one of the forums we citizens can use to discuss the laws our elected leaders adopt. I always vote (jw years excluded). I also like to hear opposing views.
I oppose that piece of legislation, not because it isn't well intentioned, but because I think it's impractical with the options available today and very probably available when this will go into effect.
I stated the reasons I was opposed, and one of them was refuted. I'm glad it was refuted. This "Town Hall", as it were, is one of the ways I learn. I haven't read enough here to change my view, but I will...if I can be convinced that this law won't create more problems than it solves.
I would embrace a bill that "taxes" the use of incandescents to fund solar energy research, but I think elimination isn't practical at this time.