Smoking
- 格式：doc
- 大小：58.00 KB
- 文档页数：7
- 1 - EG1413 ________________________________________________________________________ NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPOREEXAMINATION FOR THE DEGREE OFBACHELOR OF ENGINEERINGEG1413 – CRITICAL THINKING AND WRITINGSemester 2: 2006/20072 May 2007Time Allowed: 2 HoursINSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES1. This examination paper contains ONE (1) question and comprises SEVEN (7)printed pages.2. Answer THE QUESTION in the ANSWER BOOKLET provided.3. Hand in the ANSWER BOOKLET at the end of this examination.4. This is a CLOSED BOOK examination.- 2 - EG1413 _______________________________________________________________________ In approximately 750 wo rds, write a critique of the article ‗How the likely ban on smoking in public places shows what we have become – a nation of intolerant monomaniacs‘. Your critique should:∙Summarize the writer‘s argument (in no more than one paragraph);∙Evaluate the argument, i.e. assess its strengths and weaknesses;∙Make reference to the secondary materials ‗Ban smoking in public places and save lives, says top cancer charity‘ and ‗Britain gives up smoking‘ where appropriate (avoiding plagiarism);∙Be accurately written and cohesive.How the likely ban on smoking in public places shows what we have become – a nation of intolerant monomaniacs1By Theodore DalrympleAs the famous song puts it, ―Britons never, never shall be slaves.‖By this, I suppose, is meant that (for some historical reason or other) Britons have a natural attachment to, or vocation for, liberty. This might have been true in the past, but it is certainly not true now.I was reminded of this by a little editorial in The Lancet2 for 21st January. It concerned the prospects for a total ban in Britain of smoking in public places. Whenever I treat of the subject of smoking, I find it expedient to point out that I am not a smoker; that in fact I detest the habit; that I am irritated by smokers who do not realise how unpleasant their habit is for other people (something that they discover for themselves once they have given up); that I am not in the pay of the tobacco companies, nor do I own any shares in them. I have no vested interests to declare. The editorial in The Lancet was delighted that the political prospects for a total ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants are now very bright. The House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights has reported that a merely partial ban would be in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights by discriminating against workers who worked in places where smoking was permitted, and also against the customers of those places. As the Robespierres3 of The Lancet put it: ―People working in these premises often do not have the luxury of choosing their workplace.‖1 A monomaniac is a person who has an obsessive preoccupation with a single thing.2One of Britain‘s premier medical journals and one of the oldest and most prestigious in the world.3 Robespierre was a leader of the 18th century French Revolution who established the Reign of Terror.In other words, unlike the Britons of the song, they are slaves, and it is up to the government to ensure that the slaves, who have no recourse to another way of life, are treated decently and protected from pollutants. Of course, it is possible that publicans and barmen might be insulted by being described as slaves by The Lancet, but I shall let it pass.The Lancet then went on to demand of Members of Parliament that they do their duty: ―We call on all members of Parliament across all parties to carefully weigh up the consequences of their vote for the health of the public. Health for all must be the first consideration.‖Why should health for all be the first consideration? Health is not the only desideratum of human existence. If it were, there are hundreds of activities –most sports, for example, that cause untold numbers of injuries – that ought to be banned.A vigorous afternoon walk is probably better for the health, long-term, than any sport could ever be. The healthiness of mountaineering is more than offset by its dangers, and therefore ought to be banned.Perhaps the most alarming thing about the editorial is that it does not see that there is any question of liberty involved at all. It is not as if there is anyone who is ignorant of the dangers of smoking: in more than thirty years since I qualified as a doctor, I have never met anyone in Britain to whom the dangers of smoking came as a surprise. No one smokes in ignorance. Only if you regard a considerable proportion of the population as natural slaves in need of protection from themselves – therefore, who do things only because they cannot do otherwise –can you justify a total ban. It is not that I believe that The Lancet should have written: Liberty for all must be the first consideration.This is because I do not think there is a single end of human life that comes before all the others in all circumstances. I believe that it is quite right that there should be places where smokers cannot indulge in their habit. Where smokers and non-smokers are forced to mingle it is the non-smokers wish that they should breathe smoke-free air that should be paramount. Their freedom to breathe clean air trumps that of smokers to impart fumes to it, just as in a block of flats a resident's desire for peace and quiet at three in the morning should trump (though in practice it often does not) that of his neighbour to play loud reggae music at that hour.But there is absolutely no reason why there should not be public places for smokers to congregate socially if they so wish. I hesitate to praise the government, but its attempt to ensure that there were both smoking and non-smoking bars seemed to me laudable, even if the attempt was motivated – as The Lancet editorial implied – by a desire to please the tobacco companies. It gave a just measure of freedom to smokers and non-smokers alike.Clearly, the balance of freedom and public health is a question of degree. There aremany restrictions on our freedom that we accept for reasons of hygiene and public health. If it could be shown that, say, twenty per cent of people who entered a bar in which there was smoking died pretty soon afterwards as a result, I should be the first person to call for a total ban: though the infringement of the liberty to smoke would be the same as in the present circumstances.Liberty is not to be infringed for trivial reasons, however, or because of the kind of enthusiasm that eighteenth century thinkers associated with religious fanaticism and intolerance. The fact that I do not like smoking and that smoking in bars may marginally raise the death rate of smokers (non-smokers would have to spend an awful lot of time in smoking bars for the smoke they breathed in there to pose any real danger to them, so long in fact that they would surely be in far greater danger from alcoholism) are not serious reasons to infringe the liberties of smokers. With the downfall of the Soviet Union I thought we might see the end of the ideological mode of thought, and regain some kind of subtlety. Instead, we seem now to live in a cacophonous world of insistent and intolerant monomanias.Theodore Dalrymple is a writer and recently retired as a doctor.The Social Affairs UnitJanuary 31, 2006Ban smoking in public places and save lives, says top cancer charityA law to ban smoking in public places could save more lives more quickly than the development of a single new anti-cancer drug – according to Cancer Research U.K. Professor Alex Markham, the charity's Chief Executive, argues that the single most important contribution to tackling cancer in the next decade is legislation to stub out smoking in the country's pubs, restaurants and other enclosed workplaces.Prof Markham sets out his argument in the charity's new policy document, published today, called The Cancer Challenge: Agenda for Change.He believes that a ban would not only protect workers in the hospitality industry but would also encourage people who smoke in pubs and clubs to give up. Surveys have shown that two-thirds of smokers want to quit. Scientists estimate that a smoking ban would lead, overall, to almost 5000 lives being saved annually.It is estimated that non-smokers, exposed to smoke in the workplace, increase their lung cancer risk by up to 19 per cent. And new research suggests that second-hand smoke inthe workplace causes about 700 deaths each year across the U.K. – including the death of50 hospitality workers annually.Prof Markham says: ―Smoking kills 114,000 people every year in the U.K. and causes 90per cent of lung cancers. We are committed to vigorous research to find the best ways totreat this disease. But second-hand smoke is also a real concern.―I believe a single piece of legislation would be the most effective thing we could do tosave lives when you compare it with the time and money it takes to develop a first-classdrug.―In a recent poll of more than 4,000 people four out of five said they would supp ort a lawto ensure enclosed workplaces are smoke-free.―Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, has reported that there would be nonegative economic impact if a national ban were to be put in place. Health professionalsthroughout the country including the heads of 13 Royal Colleges believe, with CancerResearch U.K., that everyone has the right to breathe clean air.‖Notes for editors:According to the Office of National Statistics the majority of people in the U.K. supportsmoking restrictions in pubs (54%), restaurants (86%) and other enclosed public places(88%).In late 2003, the London Health Commission conducted a poll on smoke-free publicplaces in London. More than three-quarters (78%) of the 34,446 Londoners who took partin the Big Smoke Debate said they would prefer enclosed public places in London to becompletely smoke-free.A policy of creating smoke-free workplaces and public places would yield an overall netbenefit to society of £2.3 billion to £2.7 billion annually, equivalent to treating 1.3-1.5million hospital waiting list patients (Chief Medical Officer's Annual Report 2003).Cancer Research U.K. is the largest volunteer-supported cancer research organisation inthe world. It spends £213 million, raised almost entirely through public donations, onresearch programmes that support the work of 3,000 scientists in institutes, hospitals,universities and medical schools throughout the country.Adapted from Medical News TodayRetrieved September 15, 2006, from/medicalnews.php?newsid=13454Britain gives up smokingBy Philip Webster and David CharterSmoking will be banned in all pubs, clubs and workplaces from next year after historic votes in the Commons4 last night.After last-minute appeals from health campaigners, MPs opted for a blanket prohibition which will start in summer 2007, ending months of argument over whether smoking should be banned in pubs and restaurants only. They voted to ban smoking in all pubs and clubs by 384 to 184, a surprisingly large majority of 200.Smoking will still be allowed in the home and in places considered to be homes, such as prisons, care homes and hotels. But there are difficult decisions to be made on exemptions for places such as oil rigs, where smoking outside the workplace would be dangerous.Smokers lighting up in banned areas will face a fixed penalty notice of £50 and spot fines of £200 will be introduced for failing to display no-smoking signs, with the possible penalty increasing to £1,000 if the issue goes to court.Caroline Flint, the Public Health Minister, also announced that the fine for failing to stop people smoking in banned areas would be increased to £2,500 — more than ten times the £200 originally proposed.The Bill also allows the Government to increase the age for buying cigarettes. Ministers will consult on raising it from 16 to 18.Smoking could still be banned at outdoor locations that are ―substantially enclosed‖, such as football grounds and railway platforms. The details will be contained in regulations after a three-month consultation.No decision has yet been made on whether smoking will be banned in cars carrying passengers.Last night‘s votes bring England into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The Bill now goes to the Lords5 but will be through by the summer recess.Even a plan to allow smoking to continue in private clubs was thrown out as MPs on all sides were given permission to vote with their consciences rather than on a party line.4 The House of Commons – the elected parliament of the United Kingdom, also known as the lower house.5 The House of Lords – the upper house of the U.K. parliament, to which draft legislation (bills) that the lower house has approved must be presented before they become law.Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, who had earlier in the day backed the private clubs concession, changed her mind during the day.Tony Blair, who also voted for the complete ban, had given his MPs a free vote after it became clear that the partial ban for pubs and clubs serving food, which was promised in the election manifesto, would be defeated in favour of a more hardline position.With some ministers worried about a voter backlash if the ban applied to private clubs, Ms Hewitt had earlier in the day said there were strong arguments for excluding such premises. During a passionate debate she even promised new safeguards, suggesting that smoking in private clubs would be subject to annual votes of members and that smoking would not be allowed in the bar.But just before voting began at 6.50pm, her spokesman said she would be supporting the full ban after being swayed by the debate.Ms Hewitt said the Health Bill would ban smoking in ―virtually every enclosed public place and workplace‖ in England and save thousands of lives a year. Smoke-free workplaces and public places ―will become the norm‖.She said: ―An additional 600,000 people will give up smoking as a result of this law and millions more will be protected from second-hand smoke.‖Peter Hollins, director-general of the British Heart Foundation, said: ―The vote is a landmark victory for the public health of this country and will save the lives of many people.―We commend MPs for voting for the only acceptable result for the nation‘s workers —legislation that protects everyone.‖MPs voted for the ban knowing that their own workplace would not be affected. As a Royal Palace the precincts6 are exempt from statutory health and safety provisions.The TimesFebruary 15, 2006– END OF PAPER –6 This refers to the space occupied by the two houses of the U.K. parliament – the Commons and the Lords – which together form what is known as the Palace of Westminster.。
