For many a year, The Cabinet has editorialized against Daylight Saving Time. We said it made no sense; we said there were no longer enough farmers (for whom it was created) to warrant its continuation.

Stay with Eastern Standard Time, we said.

Recently, we have been listening to new arguments. All of these arguments came to the same conclusion: We should stick to one time and not change twice a year.

But that is where the similarity between The Cabinet’s point of view and the points of view of these folks diverged. They all argued – and by “they” we mean NPR talk show hosts and at least one 98.5 FM radio sports talker – that we should either go entirely with Daylight Saving Time, switch to Atlantic Standard Time (ala the Canadian Maritime Provinces), or – and this is a wild one – have the entire United States on a single time zone.

All of these ideas got us pondering, especially the Atlantic Standard Time suggestion, because several New England states, among them New Hampshire, are considering such a move. There is, however, agreement that it would need to be done as a New England move, not just a move by a single state. It would be a little silly to have New Hampshire time at 8 a.m. and Vermont at 7 a.m.

Those arguing for a single U.S. time zone point to Alaska, which is big enough to have four time zones, but has only one. And China, too, they point out. We are not sure that either Alaska or China are good role models for New England, however.

But we are coming around, after many years, to the idea of staying on Daylight Saving Time. We have heard many discussions pointing out potential problems of the “fall back” time we just experienced. For instance: “The change puts school-aged children at greater risk of injury from traffic accidents and can disrupt younger children’s sleep schedules,” said the website of the University of California-Davis.

And: “Emergency room staff at UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento typically see a significant increase in the number of traffic-related injuries when Daylight Saving ends.”

According to Britain’s Daily Express, “Less access to sunlight can impact our mental health, and mean we’re persistently feeling low, irritable and lethargic. The condition – Seasonal Affective Disorder, or SAD – is sometimes known as winter depression, according to the National Health Service.”

The argument against Daylight Saving Time, though, is that on Eastern Standard, we have more daylight in the morning. That has always been The Cabinet’s point – daylight early is as good as daylight later in the day.

But after hearing so many recent discussions, we are beginning to wonder. And we wonder if you, too, are wondering, or if you have a distinct point of view about this.

We’d love to hear from you. Send us a letter to the editor at cabnews@cabinet.com.

More light early?

More light later?

Or should we all just move to Scandinavia and sometimes have far more daylight than we want? And then far more dark than we want?

Let’s discuss.