The Multiplier of Tobacco Control Damage (New Orleans)

It is a matter of fact that, as tobacco smoking has reduced, so has obesity increased. This comparison is, of course, merely ‘correlation’ and there may be no connection between the two. However, it has long been known, at least allegorically, that smoking suppresses appetite. Or, to look at it from the other direction, that people who stop smoking start to eat a lot more. There again, another question arises: do people who have never smoked also eat more than they should? That is a corollary of the ‘appetite suppression’ hypothesis.

So far, we have made a few conjectures, based upon common hear-say. Who might do an epidemiological study on the matter? Will ASH ET AL do one?


We cannot do measurements of these things. But we can do some fun theorising.

Tonight, a few minutes ago, I did a little experiment to amuse myself (and to illustrate something interesting). I took a flashlight. This flashlight is particularly appropriate because it produces a well-defined ‘circle’ of light. I positioned the flashlight as near as possible to 1 metre away from a wall. I switched the light on, and noted that the circle of light on the wall was quite pronounced.

I measured the radius of the circle of light, which came to approx 10 centimetres.

Then I moved the light to a distance of 2 metres from the wall and again measured the radius of the circle of light. The radius measured approx 20 centimetres.

What were the areas of the wall covered by the two circles of light?

We use the formula πr².

In the first measurement, we get 3.14 x 10² = 3.14 x 100 = 314 (square centimetres).

In the second measurement, we get 3.14 x 20² = 3.14 x 400 = 1256 (square centimetres).

Thus, elementary mathematics has shown us that merely doubling the distance of the flashlight from the wall has quadrupled the area covered by the light circle. Here is the important question: “Has the total amount of light which is hitting the wall been either increased of decreased”?

Bear with me – let me amuse myself.

Imagine now that the source of light was in the middle of a sphere. Let us imagine that we have a torch bulb in the centre of a spherical balloon. The light shines out in all directions. Let us now imagine that the balloon is blown up so that its radius is 10 centimetres. What would be the area of illuminated inside skin of the expanded balloon? We have a formula – 4πr². So, the calculation would be 4 x 3.14 x 10² = 4 x 3.14 x 100 = (my calculator says!)  1256 sq. cm.

We now blow up the balloon so that the radius is now 20 cm. What now is the area of the illuminated inside skin of the expanded balloon? The calculation would be 4 x 3.14 x 20² = 5024 sq. cm. Thus, merely by doubling the radius, again, we quadruple the area.

But note how converting that area of the light hitting the wall transposes so simply to the area of the surface of a sphere! We merely multiply by four. But again we ask the question: “Is the total amount of light hitting the inside surface of the balloon greater or smaller as the balloon expands?


Gravity operates in exactly the same way, except that, whereas light can be blocked, gravity cannot be blocked. Well, I think not, but I’m not certain. It does not matter for the purpose of our little thought experiment.

I hope that readers have answered the questions about whether the amount of light hitting the surfaces gets greater or smaller in the negative. The amount of light hitting the surfaces neither increases nor decrease. It is the same. It is merely spread out further. The total amount of light is the same.

The same applies to gravity. Earth is roughly 100 million miles from the Sun. What is the total amount of gravity all around the ‘sphere’ which is 100 million miles from the Sun? If the Earth was 200 million miles away from the Sun, the gravity at that ‘sphere’ would be only a quarter of what it is where the Earth is now. HOWEVER, around the whole sphere, 200 million miles from the Sun, the TOTAL amount of gravitational force is the same as at 100 million miles.


Thank you for letting me amuse myself.


Both the examples of light and gravity distributions reveal a truth. ‘Knock on effects’ do not weaken in total merely because they spread out. Whatever can be affected will be affected. The ripples spread out and weaken as they do, but the total affect will be the same. In the first instance, maybe 10 people will be badly affected, but the affect on them will ripple, and maybe 100 more people will be affected, but much less. That affect might spread to a 1000 people, but to a much slighter extent. The important thing, however, is that the affect ripples on and on and on until there is nothing left to affect.



New Orleans.

Dick Puddlecote has the first report:

“Harrah’s New Orleans Casino claims a new citywide smoking ban is to blame for a 16 percent decline in its revenue this month compared to a year ago. 

“We are currently experiencing greater declines from our local business, while casinos in surrounding jurisdictions are enjoying record highs,” Harrah’s spokeswoman Jade Brown Russell said.”

From the local rag:

“Harrah’s New Orleans Casino claims a new citywide smoking ban is to blame for a 16 percent decline in its revenue this month compared to a year ago.

The casino says it had more visitors in May than it did in the same month last year, but its gambling revenue dropped from $28.8 million to $24.1 million, the New Orleans Advocate reports. The state released its monthly casino revenue report Monday.”

(First, don’t be bothered about ‘it had more visitors in May than it did in the same month last year’ because a commenter said that when a person goes outside for a fag, that person is counted as a new entrant for statistical purposes when he goes back in! Discount the number of visitors)

So that casino lost 16% of its revenue being about $4.7 million. What we should not do is try to evaluate the monetary consequences, since they are far too complex. What matters is activity has fallen in that sphere in New Orleans. Gamblers may have gone out of State or simply not bothered to go to casinos because they can no longer enjoy a fag as they gamble and drink. What matters is that activity has declined. It is the decline in activity which has the knock on affect. The casino cuts costs because of the reduction in activity and reduces staff costs; the reduced staff costs knock on to reduced staff income and therefore spending, which affects further down the scale. BUT, and this is the point of all the previous stuff about light and gravity, the rippling affect does not get any weaker in total as it ripples. If one person loses $1000 of spending power, and that spreads to 10 people not receiving the benefit of $100 each, and that leads to 100 people not receiving the benefit of $10 each, and that leads to 1000 people not receiving the benefit of $ 1 each, the affect will only run out when other ripples overcome the original one.

Thus, when the Tobacco Industry closes its factories in Northern Ireland and Bristol, there will be enormous ripple effects throughout the economy. All that activity has gone elsewhere. I cannot help but think that plain packaging, brought in by a conservative administration, is merely an act of revenge. There is no possible way that PP could have any economic beneficial effects whatsoever. None. If it ‘does what it says on the tin’, it will merely expedite the movement of smokers from untrustworthy, adulterated, generic tobacco company cigarettes to private supplies of trustworthy, additive-free, pure, tobacco.

There are big ripples and little ripples, and many of the ripples will cancel out, but we should never forget that a ripple never weakens in total. It can only be overcome by other ripples.


Essentially, which is obvious from the above, tobacco control is a simplistic, emotional, quasi-religious movement. It contributes nothing to the economy, health or happiness. It is a leach which is draining funds which could be used the help unfortunate people both at home and abroad.

There are multiple – hundreds – of so-called ‘charities’ whose objective is to force us all not to enjoy ourselves. Meanwhile, they themselves are enjoying themselves with our money. We should note that these particular ripples do not cancel out. They reinforce antagonism.


A final word.

Almost all persecutions start off with a reasonable base idea. In the case of tobacco control, it is the health dangers of smoking. In the case of Pol Pot, it was the danger of intellectuals, like teachers, opposing his regime. In the case of Communism, it was the danger of ‘the proletariat’ actually taking control. In the case of Nazis, it was the Jews, who were operating a world-wide wealth control, and undermining Germany. We see little about why Hitler had such a down upon Jews. In every case, there is almost always a simple hatred of some sort.

But the people with the simple hatred (which, for example, might be the simple hatred of tobacco companies because they are economical powerful) almost always have no alternative but to persecute ordinary people in order to gain control over the enemies which the hate.

Hatred should have no place in health matters. In health matters, truth and only truth should prevail. There is no way that emotional claims that “smoking kills one in two smokers” should even be allowed to see the light of day.


I cannot see any end in sight of emotional worry. What we have in common with animals is emotions. Animals do not have reason, even though they may be conscious, but we have emotion in common. Political appeals to human emotion reduces us all to animal status. Thus, for example, the NOLA smoking ban is emotion, and thus animal based. All such bans are animalistic and emotional, and unworthy of humans.


There is no doubt that, in the UK, the GENERAL smoking ban was deliberately engineered since exceptions were originally included but which exceptions were DELIBERATELY cancelled at the last minute. In other words, the general ban was a fraud.

I must to bed, even though I do not think that this subject has been exhausted.

What non-smokers who vilify smokers do not seem to understand is that the enormous taxes upon tobacco will devolve upon themselves as smokers stop paying the taxes. THEY will be the ones to pay for border force to capture contraband tobacco, and, beyond doubt historically, it will cost more for border force than the lost revenue. It has always been so.


That is the effect of the ‘gravitational’ multiplier. It spreads and spreads; it weakens at any particular point, but the overall affect is everywhere the same.

Thus NOLA will suffer the economic consequences of the ripple which does not dilute. It just spreads to the extent that it becomes too weak, at any particular point, to be measured. But it is just as strong as it was at the beginning.







2 Responses to “The Multiplier of Tobacco Control Damage (New Orleans)”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    “the TOTAL amount of gravitational force is the same as at 100 million miles”

    Except for objects that have the same size; but, a higher density(greater mass).

    • junican Says:

      Talking here about the gravitational field of the Sun. There was talk about whether or not the field is there if there is nothing for it to act on. The answer is that it must be, for how would the Sun ‘know’ that an object was there?
      Didn’t Galileo show that the mass of an object does not affect the power of the Earth’s gravitational pull? A wooden ball and a lead ball, both of the same size but having different masses, fall with the same acceleration.
      Where things get complicated is when huge bodies interact gravitationally, as for example, the Earth and the Moon. Every ton on material in the Earth acts upon every ton of material in the Moon, and vice versa. I forget Newton’s equation, but I seem to remember that there was a quadrupling (4th power) involved.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: