MOMA 2005: BANNED 

I have never been so proud to live in Superior. Believe me, if the Minnesota State Dart Tournament had been held in Superior you would never have to worry about the incident that happened at the DECC. It may still be legal to smoke in your damn hospital bed in Superior. (Which could explain why most get their health care in Duluth) Well, that is another subject all together. Lets talk smoking ban!

In 2000 MOMA (Minnesota Operators of Music and Amusements) signed a contract with the DECC (Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center), which specified the tournament would be held in a smoking facility. In 2001 the people of Duluth voted for some idiotic referendum banning smoking in all public buildings. (Including bars where food is served) From my understanding, the MOMA contract was reviewed and accepted again in 2003. What could possibly go wrong? The DECC did not prepare for this group of do-gooders that comb the city looking for reasons to be offended. The mere sight of a cigarette sends these SOB's off in a tirade . . . and they all have the mayor's number on speed dial. DECC executive director Dan Russell thought he could survive the weekend by paying the $1,000 per day fine to the city and continue the event. This was not good enough for activist Mayor Herb Bergson and the anti-smoking Gestapo. The fight began Friday morning and ended at 10:15 P.M with the arrival of a court injunction and a dozen of Duluth's finest at the Pioneer Hall. Contrary to the media portrayal, when players were asked to stop smoking they complied. But that does not mean we were happy about it.

The anti-smoking movement has been an irritation of mine for some years now – as they step all over the rights of private ownership. The reasons they give seem honorable; second hand smoke kills, the safety of our children, and smokers cost our economy in healthcare costs. However, I do not think anybody spends enough time analyzing the legitimacy of these three claims.

First of all, the ‘Smokers cost us all in health care costs' theory does not pass the smell test with me. For one thing, smokers die young, saving us billions in Social Security payouts. Even more importantly I would like to know; if these people do not die from smoking related diseases, will they die from something cheaper? The only way this theory works is if we assume that non-smokers live forever. I have seen proof otherwise.

Does secondhand smoke kill? Many people get upset with me for even asking this question – because it is supposed to be accepted as fact. Still, I have read many studies that say otherwise. The World Health Organization has suppressed two major studies confirming that secondhand smoke does not kill, but does cause discomfort and minor health issues for those with asthma or other respiratory diseases. I have also seen a British Medical Journal Study, and an American Cancer Society Survey with similar conclusions. It has been found that many of the studies concluding that secondhand smoke kills are short-term studies with smaller samples of people – and do not separate ‘non-smokers' from ‘former smokers' tainting the data. Sure, there is still enough reason to imply smoking bans in the workplace. But we must keep the risks in proper context. There is no need to run off the fricken end of the planet posting ‘No Smoking' signs.

What about the ‘save our children' faction of the non-smoking crowd? My biggest problem here – is that these same people advocate hundreds of thousands spent in taxpayer money to create skate parks for the kids. You know, places where teenagers hop on bikes made for an 8-year-old and do double-back flips over an eight foot jump in attempt to land on a small bar. If they fail, the consolation prize is slamming crotch first into a steel pipe shortly before taking a header into the concrete. But for their safety, we have four cops patrolling to make sure these kids do not light up a cigarette.

Don't get me wrong; I am not suggesting that anyone should smoke. I cannot think of a bigger waste of money and lung tissue then sucking down a pack of Marlboro's.  My only point is; the world would not come to an end over four days of smoking in the Pioneer Hall. The pressure to shut us down came from a bunch of safety radicals who will not let their own children play in the back yard without SPF 90 sun block and a bicycle helmet.  These nuts are afraid of everything, and will not be happy until you are frightened as well. The same type of groups bankrupted manufacturers and doctors over silicon breast implants causing breast cancer – which was later proven false. These groups convinced Americans that high-voltage power lines were causing leukemia in small children. After costing society billions, legitimate long-term studies showed no relationship between exposure to high voltage lines and leukemia. After destroying careers and industries by repeatedly jumping the gun with false studies, you would think the media would stop listening. Instead, the same ‘experts' are cited as proof of the new daily scare – whether it be beef, theater popcorn, red apples, pasta, or whatever ridicules thing they demand people be afraid of today.  I refuse to walk on eggshells and fear eating my dinner.

My good friend just fought a real battle against cancer. The truth is, we do not know why it strikes some people and not others. Doctors cannot predict who it will hit, and if it can be beat. She did not deserve the cancer that struck her. No study or expert opinion offered any way to avoid it. Living afraid is unproductive – while conquering mortality when it stares you in the face demonstrates an amazing personal strength that so few possess. I am proud to boast that my friend Heidi is one of these rare individuals with the power to persevere. She is loved by so many, and if this is even possible, respected more then ever before.

-Darrin Barker

January 19, 2005