-lol-
I had to post this.

Again, when was the last study done?

Some people, like myself, can't comfortably look at a lit screen (no matter how far down the brightness is adjusted) in a dark room, so because natural lighting is inconsistent I rely on curtains to cut the amount of natural light coming in and then turn the lights on so that I have a stable, even light level no matter what the time of day is.

Also, even if we are saving energy, is the benefit in energy saved greater than the disruption it creates in everyones' sleep cycles? I don't have a stable natural sleep cycle, so anything that disrupts it can really through me for a loop at times. Other people have an exceptionally stable natural sleep cycle, and have extreme difficulty trying to adjust it by a mere half-hour, forget the full hour that DST causes. So again, are the benefits outweighed by the negatives? A proper study should be done on it. Yes, I realize that the intended energy savings are to help the environment, but if a significant portion of the population has difficulty adjusting to the time changes, preventing them from performing at their best then doesn't that hamper society as a whole and disrupt the other efforts to protect the environment? I'm just saying that I'm not convinced that DST is actually as good of a thing as they claim, but if you can give me recent studies, from differing view points, that collectively show it's a good thing then I'll let it be.

I thought it also dealt with crops and the hours in daylight for farmers as well as energy conservation for us city-dwellers (even though I live in the middle ground of the two). Though I will agree it doesn't make an sense for businesses that run 24/7, for those that don't, it probably saves them a fair share of money. It does cause quite a large inconvenience to many people, and for that reason I can see why some people would want to stop it. As for study's sake? I would guess they do one at least once every year to make sure it's viable.

I'll admit I don't know much about the topic, so I was going to read up on it; then I realized I'm busy today, so I'll just leave them here. :3

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
And after reading a small piece of an article seperate from these, it seems like my thought towards the farmers is misplaced.

Well, I've read all three of those articles, and the first seems to be the most recent, the website/article is copyrighted up to 2011, but all three do seem to say the same thing: where you live, and your lifestyle, may have a very significant impact on whether DST causes an energy savings or an energy loss. Also, there have been only two noteworthy studies done since the 1970's, and both of those were on a single state scale, which is where it was noted that region may have a significant impact on the 'savings' of DST. Now, they do make mention of the fact that there are fewer traffic accidents (either with pedestrians or with other cars) during DST, and that extending DST to being year-round might make a significant long term benefit in that area. There are also indications of other possible economic benefits from the DST. The third article though does point out that the disruption in biorhythms, especially in the spring, may actual be hard on your health, and that from a health stand point it'd be best to not have a time change.

All in all the three articles just point out that a proper, comprehensive study of all of the costs/benefits of DST, both on regional and national levels, needs to be done, before anything specific can be determined.

Oh, and the 'savings' from the recent extension of DST are so small that the average statistical variance is actually several times greater, meaning it might be a loss and not a savings, but is so small that it's impossible to be sure.

So now where back to where we were before, a lot of folk lore, hype, and facts that mostly predate the majority of us (I only go back to the early 1980's), which means that at present 'opinion' is all we've got to go on, and that allows a lot of variance and little usefulness.