16 Replies to “"South Carolina Taking Light Bulb Ban into Its Own Hands"”

1. cranky-d says:

   May 10, 2011 at 12:15 pm

   The Federal government usurped state’s rights a long time ago. It’s time to take them back.

2. JD says:

   May 10, 2011 at 12:34 pm

   I like Gov Haley more and more.

3. DarthLevin says:

   May 10, 2011 at 12:46 pm

   Death to the Gorebulb!

4. dicentra says:

   May 10, 2011 at 1:31 pm

   You wingers need to understand that CO2 is more harmful to the cause planet than mercury.

5. Bob Reed says:

   May 10, 2011 at 1:33 pm

   Gee, I hope we’ll be able to buy them mail order. Maybe that’s the wrong idea; perhaps I could start an enterprise running truckloads of them up here to Long Island! For fun, profit, and the satisfaction of making gaia-cult-animist’s heads explode…

   The only question is whether the NLRB will mandate them being built by union labor.

6. ThomasD says:

   May 10, 2011 at 3:05 pm

   More states need to get in on this act.

7. antillious says:

   May 10, 2011 at 3:15 pm

   How could they find anything wrong with the expensive, toxic to produce, regularily exploding, headache inducing mecury spreaders?

   Won’t someone think of the children?

8. charlesaustin says:

   May 10, 2011 at 5:44 pm

   I admire the effort, but since CFCs are transported across state lines and South Carolinans buying South Carolina incandecent bulbs will prevent them from buying CFCs made in another state, well, that’s got Wickard and stare decisis written all over it.

9. newrouter says:

   May 10, 2011 at 5:57 pm

   “South Carolina incandecent bulbs will prevent them from buying CFCs made in another state”

   china’s a state who knew?

10. SDN says:

    May 10, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    charles, they can just do what one company in the UK did: start marketing incandescent bulbs as handwarmer elements and terrarium heaters.

11. ThomasD says:

    May 10, 2011 at 11:13 pm

    South Carolinans buying South Carolina incandecent bulbs will prevent them from buying CFCs made in another state

    Strange how that principle doesn’t seem to apply to interstate purchase of health insurance.

    Or, more narrowly, South Carolinians buying incandescent bulbs in South Carolina cannot have an impact on interstate trade in incandescent bulbs since there isn’t one. Unless the issue is not about choosing alterntives, but is instead about a mandate to buy CFCs over any other form of illumination.

    I know which outcome I think comports with the ratified meaning of the Constitution. I think that either way the courts go will prove edifying to the populace.

12. South Carolina Wants To Let You Decide « Truth Before Dishonor says:

    May 11, 2011 at 3:20 am

    […] South Carolina Taking Light Bulb Ban into Its Own Hands (HT Protein Wisdom) […]

13. mojo says:

    May 11, 2011 at 9:13 am

    “South Carolina Taking Light Bulb Ban into Its Own Hands”

    Ooh! Ahh! Ouch! HOT!!

14. Pablo says:

    May 11, 2011 at 9:32 am

    I admire the effort, but since CFCs are transported across state lines and South Carolinans buying South Carolina incandecent bulbs will prevent them from buying CFCs made in another state, well, that’s got Wickard and stare decisis written all over it.

    It’s high time that SCOTUS have another look at Wickard. I figured that Montana’s gun law would be the case to make it happen, but if it’s SC’s light bulbs instead, so be it.

15. rjacobse says:

    May 11, 2011 at 10:07 am

    I like the approach that these guys took: https://www.heatball.de/en/

    “That there ain’t a light bulb, it’s a heat ball.”

16. lighthouse says:

    May 11, 2011 at 10:26 am

    Good to see that South Carolina Light Bulb action
    Also notice the Georgia state ban repeal that has passed in the local Senate,
    and now the Canadian Government’s recent 2 year delay proposal, to 2014!

    How manufacturers and other vested interests have pushed for a ban on the popular but unprofitable simple regular types of light bulbs, and lobbied for favors: http://ceolas.net/#li1ax with documentation and copies of official communications

    Besides, no-one was calling for “a ban on energy guzzling radio tubes” (similarities with incandescents) when they were abundant, and newer transistors (similarities with LEDs) were arriving on the market. The tubes got used less anyway – but are still appreciated for special uses, without breaking down any power plant (any guitarists out there?).

    Hence:
    If a new product is preferred to the old one, why ban the old one?
    (No point, little savings)
    If an old product is preferred to the new one, why ban the old one?
    (No point, the old one is better)
    Think about it…

Comments are closed.