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
2023-03-07
99
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.
According to the passage, "Scribbler50" believes that _____.
选项
A、people drinking in the bar do not care about others’ smoking
B、people drinking in the bar hope to ban smoking
C、people walk into the bar without knowing others’ smoking there
D、people smoking in the bar do not worry about drinking
答案
A
解析
由第2段倒数第二句的反问可知,他认为人们并没有意识到二手烟的危害,所以才会到充斥着二手烟的地方去。这些地方自然也包括酒吧这类场所,所以可推出A“在酒吧里喝酒的人不在乎其他人吸烟”正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/NXcD777K
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
Skepticsofhighereducationoftencomplainthatuniversitiesoffertoomanyboringdegreeswithlittlevalueintheworkplace.【
Skepticsofhighereducationoftencomplainthatuniversitiesoffertoomanyboringdegreeswithlittlevalueintheworkplace.【
AdecadeagobiologistsidentifiedaremoteprotectedareainnorthernLaos,calledNamEt-PhouLouey,asthecountry’sprobable
"Universalhistory,thehistoryofwhatmanhasaccomplishedinthisworld,isatbottomtheHistoryoftheGreatMenwhohavew
Leadingdoctorstodayweighinonthedebateoverthegovernment’sroleinpromotingpublichealthbydemandingthatministersi
Thinnerisn’talwaysbetter.Anumberofstudieshave【C1】________thatnormal-weightpeopleareinfactathigherriskofsomedi
[A]Staycalm.[B]Stayhumble.[C]Don’tmakejudgments.[D]Berealisticabouttherisks.[E]Decidewhethert
[A]MBAprogramboominSouthAfrica[B]CurrentassessmentofMBAprograms[C]ViewsontherankingsofMBAprograms
TheaverageBritishpeoplegetsix-and-a-halfhours’sleepanight,accordingtotheSleepCouncil.Ithasbeenknownforsomet
Net-zerorulessettosendcostofnewhomesandextensionssoaringNewbuildingregulationsaimedatimprovingenergyeffic
随机试题
制造业企业发生的工资费用不一定都是生产费用。()
脾阳不振,痰湿壅阻胞脉所致经、孕之病,选用代表方为
下列哪项不是法洛四联症的病理生理改变
中和抗体抗病毒的机制是
A.三尖瓣关闭不全B.二尖瓣狭窄C.主动脉瓣关闭不全D.主动脉瓣狭窄E.室间隔缺损
甲、乙两公安民警奉命抓捕持枪通缉犯丙,被授权必要时可开枪击毙丙。甲、乙在路边设卡盘查过往车辆时,醉酒的丁驾驶轿车强行冲过,甲以为是丙而朝车开枪射击,击中丁致丁死亡。关于本案哪些说法正确?
根据《民用航空法》的规定,承运人需承担的责任有()。
构成我国沙尘暴的物质材料,多来自干旱、半干旱的草原区,在人为活动的干预下,特别是由于森林大量砍伐、土地过度开垦,工厂盲目建设,排放不加控制,结果造成生态巨变:原来有沙漠的地方沙漠扩大了;没有沙漠的地方沙漠产生了;内陆河流程缩短,水量减少。沼泽地消失:河流两
文慧是新东方学校的人力资源培训讲师,负责对新入职的教师进行入职培训,其PowerPoint演示文稿的制作水平广受好评。最近,她应北京节水展馆的邀请,为展馆制作一份宣传水知识及节水工作重要性的演示文稿。节水展馆提供的文字资料及素材参见“水资源利用与节水(素材
Sir.Williamcouldhardlyhearanything.Sir.Williamlaughedbecauseheenjoyedthestory.
最新回复
(
0
)