2. 外语
  3. Smoking bans in public places are becoming more and more common in many countries. Whether the rights of the non-smokers to brea

Smoking bans in public places are becoming more and more common in many countries. Whether the rights of the non-smokers to brea

admin2020-09-01  35
问题     Smoking bans in public places are becoming more and more common in many countries. Whether the rights of the non-smokers to breathe in fresh air outweigh those of the smokers to smoke freely is a matter of opinion, manifesting itself in a heated smoking ban debate. In the following excerpt, the author states the effect of the smoking ban. Read the excerpt carefully and write your response in about 300 words, in which you should:
    1. summarize briefly the author’s opinion:
    2. give your comment.
    Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization and language quality. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.
    The English smoking ban came into force on July 1, 2007. Smoking is banned in almost all enclosed public spaces, including pubs, restaurants and on public transport. Only places that are "like homes" or are specifically excluded by the health secretary are exempt from the ban. In essence, smoking is only allowed outdoors and in private homes. Posters must be displayed in all workplaces reminding people that smoking is illegal. Individuals who defy the ban face a ￡50 on-the-spot fine: businesses can be fined ￡200 for allowing smoking or not displaying the signs.
There are many shocking things about the smoking ban—or, at least, they would be shocking if we were not inured to them.
    First, there’s the fact that the flimsy evidence that passive smoking causes any significant harm is taken seriously. According to figures from Action on Smoking and Health(ASH)—Britain’s fundamentalist anti-smoking lobby group—the incidence of lung cancer for non-smokers is about 10 cases per 100,000 people. Regular passive smoking(that is, living with a smoking partner, not just encountering one in bars or restaurants) increases that by about 25 percent—12.6 cases per 100,000. So, even if these figures are correct, passive smoking causes 2.5 cases of lung cancer per 100,000 of the population: to put it another way, these are odds of 40,000-to-one of potentially getting lung cancer from passive smoking. On the basis of these remote risks, a war against smokers has been built.
    The second shocking thing is that governments now believe it is their right—even duty—to decide what vices we engage in. In this, the UK is not alone. From Argentina to Zambia, governments and local authorities have been queuing up to make it extremely difficult for people to indulge in filthy habits. Only this week, the Dutch joined the smoking ban club, exactly a year after England’s pubs and restaurants went smoke-free(or "smokefree" to use the single-word, Orwellian Newspeak preferred by the New Labour government). On the same day, patients in England’s mental institutions received the "protection" of the law, too—that is, they will from now on be "protected" from smoke by a super-killjoy ban on smoking even in hospitals for the mentally ill.
    Another shocking thing is the way in which the people have been browbeaten into accepting this kind of state intervention. A quarter of the population is actively engaged, at some time or other, in the pastime of smoking: and most of the rest of the population was once happy to tolerate that pastime. Yet a noisy minority, joining forces with governments that are increasingly keen to micromanage our most personal affairs and behaviour, has managed to criminalize a perfectly normal activity. This state of affairs has been accepted with barely a murmur of protest.
    The consequences for our everyday life have been profound. Smokers are now marked out as "undesirables" , shunted on to the street or to some other open area to partake in their evil habit. The simple business of socializing has been undermined: alcohol-fueled chatter is persistently interrupted by the disappearance of smokers to the nearest open space. Many people, particularly the elderly, for whom getting up and walking outside every time they want a cigarette is something of an ordeal, are visiting pubs less and less. There is something rather inhumane in the zealous anti-smoking crusade, where the health authorities and their cheerleaders seem happy to make our life worse in the name of "protecting us" from harm.
    Write your response on ANSWER SHEET FOUR.
选项
答案 My Views on the Public Smoking Ban The harsh English public smoking ban has been in effect for more than nine years, followed by many facts that some of us cannot understand. Firstly, passive smoking does not cause lung cancer as has been imagined: secondly, it is taken for granted that the governments think it is their duty to prohibit public smoking: and thirdly, even heavy smokers accept the ban naturally without thinking of it as abnormal. It seems that smokers are categorized as " undesirables", with socializing undermined and protection abused. Though some people believe the public smoking ban is an unwarranted infringement upon a person’s right of freedom to choose, and the ban is built on junk science, harms social life and many people’s livelihoods, and affects a country’s revenue, I am 100% in favor of the smoking ban. Firstly, smoking bans originate from medical considerations. Some people think passive smoking is not relevant to lung cancer, but research does show that secondhand smoke is nearly as harmful as smoking itself. Those living in homes with smokers have a 20 to 30 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer than those who do not. Many see it unfair that they have to suffer the effects of secondhand smoke when they socialize with those who smoke. Smoking bans remove these risks for the non-smokers. Secondly, smoking bans are implemented because they raise air quality in such establishments as restaurants and bars as well. Some studies have shown that the indoor air quality in bars and restaurants which are smoke-free is nine times better than those without smoking bans. That’s why we see that in many developed countries many smokers have their pastime on the street or in a fixed spot outside the building. What’s more, in part, the smoking ban may eliminate the chance of fire and other accidents as well. From what has been discussed above, it is safe to come to the conclusion that to restrict smoking in public areas is more than welcome.
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/pekMFFFM
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)