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
2019-09-17
72
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.
The word "municipal" underlined in Paragraph 1 means______.
选项
A、governmental
B、organizational
C、cosmopolitan
D、institutional
答案
C
解析
词义界定。municipal出现在第一段第一句“Municipal bans on smoking in restaurants and bars are highly controversial”,大意是市政府在餐馆和酒吧禁烟引起了高度争议。假如有读者不认识municipal,从restaurants and bars可以判断其环境。如果依然不确定,可继续往下读。第二段提到了New York City,就是市政府的例子。如果还不确定,可以继续读到这一句“should the government really have to tell us what to do”,即是政府下令禁烟。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/0MwO777K
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
NarratorListentopartofaconversationbetweentostudents.Nowgetreadytoanswerthequestions.Youmayuseyournotesto
ComingSoon:theNextGreatFluFpidemicThevirusfirstcametoofficials’attentioninabagofdeadchickens.EarlyinMarch
TheparticularsymbolicsignificanceofthecavepaintingsinsouthwesternFranceismoreexplicitlyrevealed,perhaps,byther
DinosaursandParentalCareP1:"Parentalcare"referstothelevelofinvestmentprovidedbyamotherandfathertoinsurethe
DinosaursandParentalCareP1:"Parentalcare"referstothelevelofinvestmentprovidedbyamotherandfathertoinsurethe
1Becauseadiamondismadeofpurecarbon,ithasanimmenselystrongcrystalstructure,makingitthehardestofallminerals.
Doyouagreeordisagreewiththefollowingstatement?Itisbettertorelaxbywatchingamovieorreadingabookthandoingph
Intheemergingareaofbiofuels,theproblemisbothrestrictivetariffsandheavysubsidiesinrichcountries,whichdriveup
Thewinning______wouldbeabletoinvestincost-effectivetechnologywhichwouldmakehimcompetitiveontheworldmarketfors
随机试题
三环类抗抑郁药中毒的临床表现主要是
A.抑制甲状腺素合成B.抑制甲状腺素释放C.阻断外周组织T4向T3转化D.抑制5L脱碘酶E.破坏甲状腺滤泡细胞普萘洛尔能够
不宜早期使用营养支持疗法的疾病是
患者,男,68岁。吸烟40余年,逐渐发生咳嗽,目前呼吸困难严重。查体发现患者呈桶状胸,其原因是
()在消防灭火的使用中因性能可靠、成本低廉而被广泛采用。
某初一(3)班,40人,授课内容:原地头上掷实心球,王老师在课的准备部分,组织学生围绕圆周(R=10m)慢跑,做行进间徒手操。在课的运动技能教学部分王老师站在圆周直径的三分之二处,面向多数学生讲解原地掷球的动作要领,进行示范。如下图所示:问题:
2022年2月3日,国家主席习近平向国际奥委会第139次全会开幕式发表视频致辞。习近平主席强调,中方将竭诚为世界奉献一届()的奥运盛会,践行()的奥林匹克格言。
有以下程序intadd(inta,intb){return(a+b);)main(){intk,(*f)(),a=5,b=10;f=add;}则以下函数调用语句错误的是
WhatfoodisnotprovidedformostBritishchildrenatschool?
A、Shefeltverysorry.B、Shewasinahurry.C、Shefeltabitannoyed.D、Shewassurprised.C综合推断题,从女士的话Can’tyouknockonthed
最新回复
(
0
)