The total effect on health seems rather debatable, and even if so there are better solutions (e.g. minimum ventilation requirements) for that.
Total bans on products people use and can enjoy responsibility due to potential health risks is nearly always a bad idea in my opinion. Just look at smoking in the US, for example, which recently hit an all time low. We could have gone the prohibition route (and we can guess how that would turn out), but instead we clamped down on advertising, increased taxes, and helped usher in a societal change where smoking is largely seen as unacceptable behavior by huge swaths of people now.
Theres a comment upthread championing this law because eventually government will ban all the miscreants who use gas powered appliances and heating from using them and using something much more hip and palatable to a subset of voters who can afford expensive house upgrades and electric cars at the snap of a finger.
A top end GE induction range top is $1700. A lower end one is $400.
These are both rounding errors vs. a year of energy bills. If you want something even cheaper (for instance, because you hate your tenants, and they are paying the power bill), resistive ones are still available.
Are you going to be paying for the electrical upgrades to homes that people on fixed incomes will need to get their 100+ year old homes up to code to be able to use one of these induction tops or should they just not live in a house to make you feel good?
Cool, let me tell my grandparents who are on a fixed income that they need to replace their heating and stovetop because they're dirty polluters and it's totally only going to cost a month or two of their after necessities money to do just their stove top!
of course we can. big tobacco can't get away with lying about risks any more so new smokers know what they're getting into
the plain packaging stuff is moving past people taking informed risks (even if i think they're stupid ones) and towards overt control of behavior for technocratic reasons. which explains why there's way more uptake for it in europe and australia than here
As far as I know, the lower levels of smoking have not made the US health outcomes any better than places where smoking is at ridiculously high levels, like France.
Total bans on products people use and can enjoy responsibility due to potential health risks is nearly always a bad idea in my opinion. Just look at smoking in the US, for example, which recently hit an all time low. We could have gone the prohibition route (and we can guess how that would turn out), but instead we clamped down on advertising, increased taxes, and helped usher in a societal change where smoking is largely seen as unacceptable behavior by huge swaths of people now.