DST (2018)

[jeffandnicole]

Since when does an elected official need a non-binding vote to introduce a bill?

[kkt]

Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.

I don't think that's how it works anyway.  DST is Federal legislation.  They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country.  None of this year-round DST.

[kalvado]

I don't think that's how it works anyway.  DST is Federal legislation.

Marijuana is federal legislation as well. So what?

[GaryV]

End of daylight saving time inches closer in California
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article213187609.html

Do all 3 CA's have to approve it?   

[kkt]

I don't think that's how it works anyway.  DST is Federal legislation.

Marijuana is federal legislation as well. So what?

Totally different situation.  A more-or-less victimless crime, which was a widely-ignored law, vs. something that by its nature must be decided as a country.

End of daylight saving time inches closer in California
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article213187609.html

Do all 3 CA's have to approve it?   

[kalvado]

I don't think that's how it works anyway.  DST is Federal legislation.

Marijuana is federal legislation as well. So what?

Totally different situation.  A more-or-less victimless crime, which was a widely-ignored law, vs. something that by its nature must be decided as a country.

I may have missed it.. Who is the victim of time zone change?

[kkt]

I don't think that's how it works anyway.  DST is Federal legislation.

Marijuana is federal legislation as well. So what?

Totally different situation.  A more-or-less victimless crime, which was a widely-ignored law, vs. something that by its nature must be decided as a country.

I may have missed it.. Who is the victim of time zone change?

Anyone who's stuck with a useless hour of daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM instead of a useful hour between 8:30 and 9:30 PM.

[tradephoric]

Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.

I don't think that's how it works anyway.  DST is Federal legislation.  They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country.  None of this year-round DST.

Based on your comments you seem opposed to sunrises at 4:30 AM in the morning.  I'm with you on that, but then you say "none of this year-round DST" and seem to promote California staying on standard time year round.  If we got rid of DST the sun would rise in the summer around 4:30 AM in LA (which i thought you were opposed to.. you literally just described daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM as being "useless").  If you think 4:30 AM sunrises in the summer are a bad thing - that people aren't even up to enjoy it - then you should definitely be in favor of year-round DST and vehemently opposed to year-round standard time.

[kalvado]

I don't think that's how it works anyway.  DST is Federal legislation.

Marijuana is federal legislation as well. So what?

Totally different situation.  A more-or-less victimless crime, which was a widely-ignored law, vs. something that by its nature must be decided as a country.

I may have missed it.. Who is the victim of time zone change?

Anyone who's stuck with a useless hour of daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM instead of a useful hour between 8:30 and 9:30 PM.

Then I definitely need to declare myself a victim of a current DST approach, who has to go through extreme pain and suffering due to distortion of sleep cycle and through the torture of  sleep deprivation.

[02 Park Ave]

The victims of DST are those who have to go through the politician imposed inconvenience of changing their clocks twice a year.

[hotdogPi]

The victims of DST are those who have to go through the politician imposed inconvenience of changing their clocks twice a year.

That's an extremely minor inconvenience.

[kalvado]

The victims of DST are those who have to go through the politician imposed inconvenience of changing their clocks twice a year.

That's an extremely minor inconvenience.

Yep, but still that is a bigger one than sticking to one set of timing for 12 months a year.

[kkt]

Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.

I don't think that's how it works anyway.  DST is Federal legislation.  They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country.  None of this year-round DST.

Based on your comments you seem opposed to sunrises at 4:30 AM in the morning.  I'm with you on that, but then you say "none of this year-round DST" and seem to promote California staying on standard time year round.  If we got rid of DST the sun would rise in the summer around 4:30 AM in LA (which i thought you were opposed to.. you literally just described daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM as being "useless").  If you think 4:30 AM sunrises in the summer are a bad thing - that people aren't even up to enjoy it - then you should definitely be in favor of year-round DST and vehemently opposed to year-round standard time.

I was saying what California's legal options:  either status quo or year-round standard time.  What I would prefer is the status quo, with the minor point that I'd prefer a couple of weeks later spring forward and a couple of weeks earlier fall back, but that isn't up to the State of California.

Sunrise coming much later than people need to wake up in the winter would make winter even more gloomy than it already is.

[kalvado]

Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.

I don't think that's how it works anyway.  DST is Federal legislation.  They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country.  None of this year-round DST.

Based on your comments you seem opposed to sunrises at 4:30 AM in the morning.  I'm with you on that, but then you say "none of this year-round DST" and seem to promote California staying on standard time year round.  If we got rid of DST the sun would rise in the summer around 4:30 AM in LA (which i thought you were opposed to.. you literally just described daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM as being "useless").  If you think 4:30 AM sunrises in the summer are a bad thing - that people aren't even up to enjoy it - then you should definitely be in favor of year-round DST and vehemently opposed to year-round standard time.

I was saying what California's legal options:  either status quo or year-round standard time.  What I would prefer is the status quo, with the minor point that I'd prefer a couple of weeks later spring forward and a couple of weeks earlier fall back, but that isn't up to the State of California.

Sunrise coming much later than people need to wake up in the winter would make winter even more gloomy than it already is.

Now with CA attitude to current administration in particular and federal legislation in general, I can envision "we have DST from January 1 to December 31, and those who disagree may feel free to get lost" scenario. It is not way different from some other hot political topics, probably even less of an issue in grand scheme of things.  I am not sure what federal government can do in such situation beyond requiring federal employers to report to their office on "official" DST time.

[kkt]

Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.

I don't think that's how it works anyway.  DST is Federal legislation.  They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country.  None of this year-round DST.

Based on your comments you seem opposed to sunrises at 4:30 AM in the morning.  I'm with you on that, but then you say "none of this year-round DST" and seem to promote California staying on standard time year round.  If we got rid of DST the sun would rise in the summer around 4:30 AM in LA (which i thought you were opposed to.. you literally just described daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM as being "useless").  If you think 4:30 AM sunrises in the summer are a bad thing - that people aren't even up to enjoy it - then you should definitely be in favor of year-round DST and vehemently opposed to year-round standard time.

I was saying what California's legal options:  either status quo or year-round standard time.  What I would prefer is the status quo, with the minor point that I'd prefer a couple of weeks later spring forward and a couple of weeks earlier fall back, but that isn't up to the State of California.

Sunrise coming much later than people need to wake up in the winter would make winter even more gloomy than it already is.

Now with CA attitude to current administration in particular and federal legislation in general, I can envision "we have DST from January 1 to December 31, and those who disagree may feel free to get lost" scenario. It is not way different from some other hot political topics, probably even less of an issue in grand scheme of things.  I am not sure what federal government can do in such situation beyond requiring federal employers to report to their office on "official" DST time.

Sigh.  Shall I try again?  The dates of transition are determined Federally.  States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.

[hotdogPi]

Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.

I don't think that's how it works anyway.  DST is Federal legislation.  They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country.  None of this year-round DST.

Based on your comments you seem opposed to sunrises at 4:30 AM in the morning.  I'm with you on that, but then you say "none of this year-round DST" and seem to promote California staying on standard time year round.  If we got rid of DST the sun would rise in the summer around 4:30 AM in LA (which i thought you were opposed to.. you literally just described daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM as being "useless").  If you think 4:30 AM sunrises in the summer are a bad thing - that people aren't even up to enjoy it - then you should definitely be in favor of year-round DST and vehemently opposed to year-round standard time.

I was saying what California's legal options:  either status quo or year-round standard time.  What I would prefer is the status quo, with the minor point that I'd prefer a couple of weeks later spring forward and a couple of weeks earlier fall back, but that isn't up to the State of California.

Sunrise coming much later than people need to wake up in the winter would make winter even more gloomy than it already is.

Now with CA attitude to current administration in particular and federal legislation in general, I can envision "we have DST from January 1 to December 31, and those who disagree may feel free to get lost" scenario. It is not way different from some other hot political topics, probably even less of an issue in grand scheme of things.  I am not sure what federal government can do in such situation beyond requiring federal employers to report to their office on "official" DST time.

Sigh.  Shall I try again?  The dates of transition are determined Federally.  States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.

Areas can have a different official time and commonly used time. For example, Phenix City, AL and Jackpot, NV.

[kalvado]

Sigh.  Shall I try again?  The dates of transition are determined Federally.  States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.

List of controlled substances is determined Federally.  States cannot change that list. Didn't prevent a whole list of states to do as they please.

[kalvado]

Areas can have a different official time and commonly used time. For example, Phenix City, AL and Jackpot, NV.

May be easy when area is mostly doing business with a nearby area via surface transportation. Would cause a whole lot of issues with major international airports like LAX and SFO or ports. (Oakland, Long Beach).
Not a big deal for store owner to post hours with time zone for clarity, a bit more involved for the airline to do that on a schedule

[kkt]

Sigh.  Shall I try again?  The dates of transition are determined Federally.  States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.

List of controlled substances is determined Federally.  States cannot change that list. Didn't prevent a whole list of states to do as they please.

Sure.  But the marijuana laws are mostly a matter of whether people can buy or use it without being prosecuted.  I guess people or states could make up their own time zones, but they'd find it awfully lonely when no one else used the same one.  You're free to set your watch to UTC and never have to change it at all, even if you go flying across oceans.

Most law enforcement and prosecutions are a local decision.  The states could decide that marijuana use by persons over 21 was not a priority for city, state, and county law enforcement and prosecutors, and that accounted for most of the cases that used to be brought.  But marijuana is still on the federal controlled substances list, and if you encounter national park or forest service rangers or TSA or customs and immigration officials with marijuana on you they would probably take it away at the very least, and could prosecute you.

[kalvado]

Sigh.  Shall I try again?  The dates of transition are determined Federally.  States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.

List of controlled substances is determined Federally.  States cannot change that list. Didn't prevent a whole list of states to do as they please.

Sure.  But the marijuana laws are mostly a matter of whether people can buy or use it without being prosecuted.  I guess people or states could make up their own time zones, but they'd find it awfully lonely when no one else used the same one.  You're free to set your watch to UTC and never have to change it at all, even if you go flying across oceans.

Most law enforcement and prosecutions are a local decision.  The states could decide that marijuana use by persons over 21 was not a priority for city, state, and county law enforcement and prosecutors, and that accounted for most of the cases that used to be brought.  But marijuana is still on the federal controlled substances list, and if you encounter national park or forest service rangers or TSA or customs and immigration officials with marijuana on you they would probably take it away at the very least, and could prosecute you.

Well, California issues licenses to sell cannabis to recreational users and collect tax on these sales - which is still a federal felony. So much for "not a priority".
I can easily see CA doing something similar with their clock settings. Question is what would happen next. If DOT (agency in charge of time zone) decides "enforcement is not a priority"...
In a grand scheme of things, avoiding confusion is the main reason for time zone policies. If relaxing those regulations would avoid extra confusion, I would say spirit of law is upheld - even if letter of the law is not. So it is a matter of how hard can CA push all this.... They may prevail, at least in 1 or 2 out of 3 states 

[02 Park Ave]

Ideally, local time would be determined on a county by county basis.  That way "time" would be most reflective of how people actually live there and not what time zone they are in with resulting unusual sun rise and sun set times.

[kalvado]

Ideally, local time would be determined on a county by county basis.  That way "time" would be most reflective of how people actually live there and not what time zone they are in with resulting unusual sun rise and sun set times.

If you still want 1 hour steps, then county is probably too small of an entity - too much mess with finding out when that 11 AM conference call actually gonna star. However, nothing really prevents individual employers to set up clocks... I mean hours... with respect to existing clocks to reflect local schedules. Including seasonal shifts for emulation of DST, if desired.
The only reason I see against adopting one flat time nationwide is that switching date in the middle of work day would be an issue.

[english si]

Anyone who's stuck with a useless hour of daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM instead of a useful hour between 8:30 and 9:30 PM.

Both are pretty useless and superfluous hours to have daylight. It's really a matter of preference whether 0430-2030 or 0530-2130 is better. If it was 0430-1930 (ie 7.5 hours either side of 12) vs 0530-2030 then there's more of a case for evening than morning.

[kalvado]

Anyone who's stuck with a useless hour of daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM instead of a useful hour between 8:30 and 9:30 PM.

Both are pretty useless and superfluous hours to have daylight. It's really a matter of preference whether 0430-2030 or 0530-2130 is better. If it was 0430-1930 (ie 7.5 hours either side of 12) vs 0530-2030 then there's more of a case for evening than morning.

The best part of this discussion is that something people describe as intolerable situation is actually a best case scenario a few hundred miles away at the other edge of time zone or/and further north/south...

[kkt]

Since they're looking for political cover in case it's enacted and the voters want to blame someone for sunrise coming at 4:30 AM.

I don't think that's how it works anyway.  DST is Federal legislation.  They could opt California out and stick to standard time year-round, or they can do DST on the dates adopted for the whole country.  None of this year-round DST.

Based on your comments you seem opposed to sunrises at 4:30 AM in the morning.  I'm with you on that, but then you say "none of this year-round DST" and seem to promote California staying on standard time year round.  If we got rid of DST the sun would rise in the summer around 4:30 AM in LA (which i thought you were opposed to.. you literally just described daylight between 4:30 and 5:30 AM as being "useless").  If you think 4:30 AM sunrises in the summer are a bad thing - that people aren't even up to enjoy it - then you should definitely be in favor of year-round DST and vehemently opposed to year-round standard time.

I was saying what California's legal options:  either status quo or year-round standard time.  What I would prefer is the status quo, with the minor point that I'd prefer a couple of weeks later spring forward and a couple of weeks earlier fall back, but that isn't up to the State of California.

Sunrise coming much later than people need to wake up in the winter would make winter even more gloomy than it already is.

Now with CA attitude to current administration in particular and federal legislation in general, I can envision "we have DST from January 1 to December 31, and those who disagree may feel free to get lost" scenario. It is not way different from some other hot political topics, probably even less of an issue in grand scheme of things.  I am not sure what federal government can do in such situation beyond requiring federal employers to report to their office on "official" DST time.

Sigh.  Shall I try again?  The dates of transition are determined Federally.  States can opt out of DST entirely, but they can't make up their own transition dates or decide to have DST year-round.

Areas can have a different official time and commonly used time. For example, Phenix City, AL and Jackpot, NV.

Do you really want to have every city and town making up their own time zone, like on the "Principal Cities of the U.S. in 1857" thread?  Because that sounds like a disaster to me.