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.

admin2019-09-17  54
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.
What is the main idea of the passage?
选项 A、Scribbler50’s attitude toward smoking bans.
B、The research on people’s stopping smoking.
C、The effectiveness of smoking bans.
D、Smoking bans in restaurants and bars.
答案C
解析    主旨大意。第一段提出了一个问题“But are all smoking bans equally successful”，全文力图回答该问题。第二段以酒吧老板为例说明禁烟不受欢迎；第三段引用酒吧老板的博文引发的研究证明在餐馆和酒吧禁烟效果良好；第四段提出问题，吸烟率依然很高，需要其他手段协助；第五段和第六段表明烟盒上的警示语对有些人有效；第七段再次以酒吧老板为例证明人们对禁烟的态度有所转变；最后一段又提出问题，是否应该再接再厉以深化禁烟效果?并暗示政府可能扩大禁烟范围。综上，全文的主旨是禁烟效果，即选项C。【知识拓展】涉及全文的主旨大意，效率高的读者读完即能总结。也有的读者需要重新概括。多数情况下浏览各段主题句(大多在段首，有的在段中或段末)即可，但本题不同，既需要检索主题句，也需要读者自己总结，因为有的段落没有明显的主题句，然后把上述信息综合起来予以概括。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/A1PYFFFM
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
随机试题
最新回复(0)