You aren't omniscient, nor are you omnipotent. You don't know what is good for others, and even if you did, you couldn't force them to do what is best for them.

Your comment makes no sense, compact fluorescent lamps exist that draw less power and give the same light spectrum and lit up nigh on instantaneously. While the cost of aquisition is ~5x as much they last 15x the time of the incandescent and draw 1/4:th as much power.

Outlawing production, import and sales would work. If someone actually found a use for incandescents that can't be substituted they can get an excempt from the appropriate authority.

Since you are interested in improving efficiency, why stop with light bulbs? There is a scale of efficiency computable with any similar device using energy, from light bulbs through refrigerators to automobiles and any manufactured device can be rated on a scale. Instead of banning inefficient devices, they should be taxed so that the uneconomic utilization of inefficient devices could be obvious at the point of sale instead of after a term of use. The money gained could be applied to increasing the efficiency of the device through government research in the area. Considering the quality of the latest energy bill passed by the US congress this logical idea is as likely to be adopted as the liklihood of the second coming of Jesus.

incandescent light bulbs are economic folly already, creating an advanced taxing system would be wholly redundant for "easy" cases like this.

Automobiles use incandescent lights. Fixtures have come into use using automobile bulbs. Would you then ban high intensity lighting?

The automotive industry is going to switch to LED lighting for headlights brake lights, etc. LED (light emitting diode) lights are more efficient than fluorescent lights, using about 10% of the energy as an equivalent incandescent light, They can be very bright and last a long time. However, they are still too expensive to compete with incandescent and compact fluorescent for the home market.

Taxing inefficient light bulbs and other energy users to generate funds for government research is a well intentioned idea, but government research often turns into a black hole where tons of money are poured into for little results. It would be better to use the funds to give rebates to purchasers of more efficient light bulbs, like compact fluorescent and especially LED lights, helping them to be come more competitive with incandescent bulbs. The same concept could be applied to other energy using devices, such as motor vehicles.

Fixtures can be swapped for new ones, HID, HPS, LED lamps is not incandescents and would thus not be banned.

Also, a "hack" like CFLs is conceivable for automotives as well.