ShackledNation
Libertarian
Low efficiency incandescent bulbs have been banned for being less efficient. There are higher efficiency incandescent, yes, but lower efficiency ones that may be cheaper are banned. And you still have not answered my question. "What is the general quality of an item that justifies a ban? Is it "exposing users to a toxic substance constantly?" Is it "being less efficient than another product?" What is it? What is the belief?"Not in the least. Lead paint was banned because it had a toxic substance in it to which people were constantly exposed. Unless you break a bulb open and start sucking on the insides, that's not true of CFLs.
And bulbs never break, right? You still seem to be scrambling for exceptions. So answer this question. What is the general quality of an item that justifies a ban? Is it "exposing users to a toxic substance constantly?" Is it "being less efficient than another product?" What is it? What is the belief? Because so far I just see the answer "because I think so" and that wont cut it.
Bulbs break, but it's not a serious hazard if you dispose of them.
I'd like for you to name a product that's been banned for being less efficient. That's not the case with bulbs, as incandescents exist that meet the requirement.
I would say exposing users to a toxin constantly is a pretty different from having the possibility of a toxin spreading. Drinking bleach would be harmful, but we don't ban bleach.
Last edited: