2. 外语
  3. 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.

admin2015-09-26  89
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 barkeep 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(病态的)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(自以为是的)customers who complained every time a fellow patron lit up, or working in a smoke-filled bar all night and going home "smelting 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.
Which of the following statements is CORRECT about smoking restriction according to the passage?
选项 A、Municipal bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are effective.
B、Scribbler50 himself did some research on the effectiveness of the bans on smoking.
C、Christian Jarrett found the morbid signs on cigarettes are important.
D、The measure that parents are restricted from smoking in cars with children is useful.
答案A
解析 推理题。第一段第一句提到，市政府关于在餐馆和酒吧的禁烟令虽然是极具争议性的，但是统计数据表明它们非常有效。所以[A]“市政府关于在餐馆和酒吧的禁烟令是有效的”是对文意的正确阐述，故为答案。第三段中提到，Scribbler50的贴激发了博客名为PalMD的医师上周对禁烟的有效性进行调查的灵感。由此可知，[B]“Scribbler50自己对禁烟效果进行调查”是错误的阐述，故排除；第六段中提到不是所有反对吸烟的标语都同等有效，而要看针对谁，有时候一条病态的警告恐怕会适得其反，所以[C]“Christian Jarrett发现有关吸烟的病态标志很重要”是错误的阐述，故排除；最后一段中提到，一些地区已经限制和孩子在一起的父母在车内抽烟，但还没有看见有关评估这些结果的报告，可知[D]“禁止家长和孩子在汽车里吸烟的方法很有效”是错误的阐述，故排除。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/DvXK777K
0

专业英语四级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)