首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Municipal bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are highly controversial, but history shows they can also be highly effective.
Municipal bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are highly controversial, but history shows they can also be highly effective.
admin
2022-06-18
81
问题
Municipal
bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are highly controversial, but history shows they can also be highly effective. But are all smoking bans equally successful?
The barkeeper and blogger who writes as "Scribbler50" was outraged when, in 2003, New York City enacted one of the first comprehensive smoking bans in bars and restaurants, "How can a guy and some board just kick us in the teeth like this? This smacks of fascism." If people are aware of the consequences of smoking or visiting places with lots of secondhand smoke, should the government really have to tell us what to do? Won’t people just vote with their feet and smoke even more when they’re at home and away from restrictions?
Scribbler50’s post inspired the physician who blogs as "PalMD" last week to look up the research on the effectiveness of smoking bans. He found several studies showing that not only did workers in restaurants and bars show improved health shortly after the bans were put in place, but smokers themselves also reduced the number of cigarettes they smoked.
Overall, however, smoking rates remain persistently high, despite the common workplace smoking bans. Can other government measures help these smokers live healthier lives, or at least prevent people from taking up the habit?
In the U.S., warning messages have been in place on cigarette packages for decades. But the messages are rather clinical, for example: "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, and May Complicate Pregnancy." What if packages contained more dramatic warnings? In January, psychologist and science writer Christian Jarrett looked at a small study of smokers’ reactions to cigarette warnings. The researchers measured self-esteem in student smokers, then showed them cigarette packages with either death-related warnings ("Smokers die earlier") or esteem-related warnings ("Smoking makes you unattractive"). Students who derived self-esteem from smoking and saw the death-related warnings later viewed smoking more positively than those who saw the esteem-related warnings. For students whose smoking wasn’t motivated by self-esteem, the effect was reversed.
So not all anti-smoking messages are equal: Depending on who the message is directed at, a morbid warning on a cigarette label may actually
backfire
.
Scribbler50 for his part, is now a convert favoring smoking restrictions, at least in his narrow limits as a bartender. His patrons who haven’t quit smoking say they smoke a lot less now that they have to go outside to get a nicotine fix. He doesn’t miss emptying ashtrays, or the holier-than-thou customers who complained every time a fellow patron lit up, or working in a smoke-filled bar all night and going home "smelling like you put out a three-alarm".
Would it be right to enact even more restrictions on smoking in the interest of public health? It’s hard to deny that banning smoking in public, indoor spaces has been a huge success. Why not try out some stronger smoking bans? Parents in some areas are already restricted from smoking in cars with children, but I haven’t seen a study that evaluates the success of those measures. Perhaps a state or municipality could try extending the ban to homes, with provisions for studying the results. It’s also possible that stronger measures would be counter-productive, like the stronger warnings on cigarette labels. Maybe we’ll decide that at some level deciding whether or not to smoke should still be an individual choice. Or maybe in a few generations, it won’t be necessary to regulate smoking: There won’t be any smokers left.
What is the main idea of the passage?
选项
A、Scribbler50’s attitude toward smoking bans.
B、The research on people’s stopping smoking.
C、The effectiveness of smoking bans.
D、Smoking bans in restaurants and bars.
答案
C
解析
本文先讲禁烟令的实施过程中人们的态度,由此引出对禁烟效果的讨论,还探讨了不同提示语的禁烟效果,最后展望未来禁烟的一些可能性,可以看出,禁烟效果是贯穿全文的主题,故C正确。A“Scribbler50对禁烟的态度”、B“关于人们停止吸烟的研究”和D“餐厅和酒吧的禁烟令”均是文章的细节,不足以概括全文。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/7TuO777K
本试题收录于:
CATTI三级笔译综合能力题库翻译专业资格(CATTI)分类
0
CATTI三级笔译综合能力
翻译专业资格(CATTI)
相关试题推荐
TheChacoPhenomenonP1:Betweenabout900to1150AD,amysteriousStoneAgeculturearose,flourished,andthenvanishedinth
AManyastronomersagreedBwithShapley’sbiggalaxyhypothesis;Ctherefore,othersdisputedtheideaDandfounditunlikely.
_____onatwo-laneroad,youshouldpassonlyontheleftsideofthevehicle.
IssuessurroundingAthedistributionofBincomeareamongCmostcontroversialinDeconomics.
AIncreasingphysicalactivitycanBhelppeoplewithnormalbloodpressureClowertheirriskofDdevelophighbloodpressure.
Inanyenvironment______alimittotheresourcesthatareavailableforanyparticularspecies.
Becausesomuchofcultureislearnedimplicitly,wemaybeunawarethatcertain"invisible"aspectsofourcultureexist:howl
AResearchhasshownthatBlessboysthangirlsaresocializedtoseekCjobsinwhichtheycanhelpDothers,suchasnursing.
Theimportanceofagriculturecannotbeoverstated.Momthan50percentoftheworld’slaborforceisemployedinagriculture.T
随机试题
电压互感器一、二次均须安装________。
何为“髓之海”
甲乙丙三人合作开发一项技术,合同中未约定权利归属。该项技术开发完成后,甲、丙想要申请专利,而乙主张通过商业秘密来保护。对此,下列哪些选项是错误的?()
基金宣传推介材料允许()。
在《商业银行风险监管核心指标》中,()是衡量商业银行流动性状况及其波动性的流动性风险监管指标。
某公司拟投资一个新项目,需要投资总额3000万元,以下筹资方式中,企业能获得税收减免优势的有()。
某商场为增值税一般纳税人,为响应政府拉动内需的号召,2020年5月采取以旧换新方式销售冰箱10台,同时回收10台旧冰箱,每台收购金额为150元,取得现金净收入(含税)为24000元。已知每台冰箱市场零售价格为2550元。此项业务的销售额为(
【廖仲恺被剌案】
某公司为了扩大其网上商店的销售收入,采取了各种各样的广告宣传和促销手段,但是效果并不明显。该公司重金聘请了专业人士进行市场分析,专业人士认为开通了网上银行的人群才是真正潜在的网上商店的顾客群。于是该公司决定与商业银行合作,在新开通网上银行业务的人群中开展宣
荣辱是一对基本道德范畴,“荣”即荣誉,是指社会对个人履行社会义务所给予的褒扬与赞许,以及个人所产生的自我肯定性心理体验;“辱”即耻辱,是指社会对个人不覆行社会义务所给予的贬斥与谴责,以及个人所产生的自我否定性心理体验。荣辱观()
最新回复
(
0
)