I was purchasing the CFLs long before the impending ban. I live in Texas, so for 350/365 days, I don't want light bulbs that generate more heat than light. I completely disagree with banning the incandescent bulbs: in colder climates, they both heat and light a room, and it is arguably more efficient (in some cases) to have some light bulbs both heating and lighting a room safely.
Another thing that is often left unconsidered is the amount of energy and resources that it takes to make the "more efficient" CFL bulbs. If the resources used to create the bulb, and safely dispose of the bulb, are not sufficiently low enough, then the incandescent bulb remains more efficient. With CFLs, the lifespans have been overestimated by some 33% according to some studies (sorry, no links, just an "I read this somewhere" item), and if those lifespans aren't long enough, they are all that much less likely to save energy, in aggregate. It is sometimes more efficient to create something inexpensively and dispose of it inexpensively, even if its usage of energy is "more efficient."
Given that I prefer to have lights that don't heat up my home unnecessarily (necessitating my running my air conditioning more often), I'll probably eventually start using the LED lights, and nominally be very efficient. But it pays to remember that "efficiency" is in the eye of the beholder.
Random physics trivia: a human being is roughly equivalent to a 100 Watt light bulb in terms of how much heat is emitted. Hmm, maybe they'll start banning human beings, given how inefficiently resources are spent for their maintenance and upkeep.