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
58
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.【
AdecadeagobiologistsidentifiedaremoteprotectedareainnorthernLaos,calledNamEt-PhouLouey,asthecountry’sprobable
Thinnerisn’talwaysbetter.Anumberofstudieshave【C1】________thatnormal-weightpeopleareinfactathigherriskofsomedi
ThedeclineinAmericanmanufacturingisacommonrefrain,particularlyfromDonaldTrump."Wedon’tmakeanythinganymore,"he
Peoplewhousuallychowdownonchillipeppersmayliveforlongerandhaveasignificantlyreducedriskofdyingfromcardiovas
InApril,BritishresearchersatUniversityCollegeLondonfoundthat,ratherthantherecommendedfive,sevendailyportionsof
Everyoneknowsthatthefirstruleofdrivingisnevertakingyoureyesofftheroad.Teendrivers【C1】________beingcareful,bu
Consumerproductssuchasshampoosandsunscreens,evenonesboostedassafer,maycontainpotentiallyharmfulchemicalsnotlis
ThefirstsettlersintheU.S.hadto____withunfriendlyIndians,sickness,coldness,andlackoffood
Homesicknessisverycommonamongstudentsawayfromhome–eventhosewhohadpreviouslybeenawayatovernightcamportraveled
随机试题
男性,60岁。慢性支气管炎20年,3天前受凉后咳喘加重。血气分析pH7.32,PaCO280mmHg,PaO255mmHg,BE+5mmol/L,应考虑
24小时人体总氮丧失量中非尿素氮的损失途径是
血证的治疗原则
组成头颅的骨骼有
滑胎的预防调治应遵循( )。
现行的《环境空气质量标准》包括()种污染物的空气质量标准。
看跌期权也被称为“认购权”。()
公共关系与人际关系的区别有()。
分析下述论证中存在的缺陷和漏洞。选择若干要点,写一篇600字左右的文章。对该论证的有效性进行分析和评论。随着第四次工业革命到来,500万人将面临失业,这其中新闻行业受到的冲击最大。随着新闻机器人的广泛应用,在不久的将来,记者将会彻底被新闻机器人所
SQLServer2008提供了多种数据备份方法:Ⅰ.完整数据库备份Ⅱ.差异数据库备份Ⅲ.文件备份Ⅳ.差异文件备份以上备份方法中,在备份完成之后必须再对日志进行备份的是()。
最新回复
(
0
)