Prohibition is seldom a good idea. When there is a demand for a product, black markets, gang involvement and smuggling are the usual consequences. And as it once was in America with liquor, will it soon be with lightbulbs in this country? Will people soon be concealing old-styleincandescent bulbs at the bottom of their bags as they pass through Customs?
Will packages containing drugs also contain a consignment of these lighting accessories when they clandestinely make their way to these shores? As much is invited by the Government's plan to phase out energy-hungry incandescent bulbs from late next year. From that time, no new stocks will be able to be imported for sale.
Fluorescent lightbulbs are undoubtedly the way of the future. Typically, they use between a fifth and a quarter of the energy used by incandescent bulbs while lasting eight to 10 times longer. They are not without their problems, however. They are, for example, ill-suited for chandeliers and tend to blow if turned down with a dimmer switch. On that basis, there will be a demand for old-style lightbulbs after their banishment. In some way or other, this will be met.
The prohibition is the more ridiculous in that it is so unnecessary. The financial saving to households of fluorescent lightbulbs means they sell themselves. In relatively quick time, the technology associated with them will expand to answer current problems. Old-style bulbs will be consigned to history. The argument that people should be free to use the type of lightbulb that suits their need will become redundant. Still shining brightly, however, will be the belief that the Government has adopted coercion when coaxing would have sufficed. Rather than engendering incandescent rage, it could have made light work of this.
