I don't recall hearing the same objections to standard flourescent lighting in either residential or commercial occupancies. In fact, federal regulations have, for years, allowed these lamps to be disposed of as household trash. As for government insinuation into the right of all Americans to produce light as they wish, I remind that Congress has been legislating efficiency standards for flourescent lighting for decades. While I fully support the aim of eliminating the release of mercury into the environment, I wonder why CFL's are being singled out now. The technology promises an 80% reduction in energy use for lighting. One would assume that would also yield a similarly large reduction in the (substantial) mercury emissions from electrical generating plants, as well as reductions in other pollutants and greenhouse gases. Establishing a recycling routine for the lamps would be a small price to pay to for the potential environmental benefits. Anecdotally, having installed many hundreds of CFL products, I have yet to break one. I also council clients on the need to properly recycle them at end of life. Certainly, improved education and collection procedures should be established to allow the responsible use of the lamps. Better design and manufacturing techniques would eliminate the objectionable end-of-life failure modes described. Notably, not all manufacturers' CFLs exhibit over-heating failures. Hopefully, we will be able to replace CFLs with a more environmentally benign technology soon. Until then, we should focus on the overall ecological effects of our power consumption, and not give sway to knee-jerk reactions by legislators with questionable motives.