2016年12月六级第2套仔细阅读 Passage 1 原文翻译及答案解析

Any veteran nicotine addict will testify that fancy packaging plays no role in the decision to keep smoking. So, it is argued, stripping cartons of their branding will trigger no mass movement to quit.

任何资深的尼古丁成瘾者都会证明，花哨的包装在决定继续吸烟方面不起作用。因此，有人认为，剥离烟盒的品牌标识不会引发大规模戒烟运动。

But that isn't why the government — under pressure from cancer charities, health workers and the Labour party — has agreed to legislate for standardised packaging. The theory is that smoking should be stripped of any appeal to discourage new generations from starting in the first place. Plain packaging would be another step in the reclassification of cigarettes from inviting consumer products to narcotics (麻醉剂).

但这并不是政府——在癌症慈善机构、卫生工作者和工党的压力下——同意立法推行标准化包装的原因。其理论是，吸烟应被剥离任何吸引力，以阻止新一代人开始吸烟。朴素包装将是将香烟从诱人的消费品重新归类为麻醉剂的又一步。

Naturally, the tobacco industry is violently opposed. No business likes to admit that it sells addictive poison as a lifestyle choice. That is why government has historically intervened, banning advertising, imposing health warnings and punitive (惩罚性的) duties. This approach has led over time to a fall in smoking with numbers having roughly halved since the 1970s.

自然，烟草行业强烈反对。没有企业喜欢承认它销售成瘾毒药作为生活方式选择。这就是为什么政府历史上进行干预，禁止广告、施加健康警告和惩罚性关税。随着时间的推移，这种方法导致吸烟率下降，自20世纪70年代以来数字大致减半。

Evidence from Australia suggests plain packaging pushes society further along that road. Since tobacco is one of the biggest causes of premature death in the UK, a measure that tames the habit even by a fraction is worth trying.

来自澳大利亚的证据表明，朴素包装推动社会沿着那条路走得更远。由于烟草是英国过早死亡的最大原因之一，即使是稍微驯服这种习惯的措施也值得一试。

So why has it taken so long? The Department of Health declared its intention to consider the move in November 2010 and consulted through 2012. But the plan was suspended in July 2013. It did not escape notice that a lobbying firm set up by Lynton Crosby, David Cameron's election campaign director, had previously acted for Philip Morris International, (The prime minister denied there was a connection between his new adviser's outside interests and the change in legislative programme.) In November 2013, after an unnecessary round of additional consultation, health minister Jane Ellison said the government was minded to proceed after all. Now we are told Members of Parliament (MPs) will have a free vote before parliament is dissolved in March.

那么为什么花了这么长时间？卫生部在2010年11月宣布考虑这一举措，并在2012年进行了磋商。但该计划在2013年7月被暂停。值得注意的是，由戴维·卡梅伦的竞选活动总监林顿·克罗斯比设立的游说公司此前曾为菲利普·莫里斯国际公司服务。（首相否认他的新顾问的外部利益与立法计划的变化之间存在联系。）2013年11月，在不必要的一轮额外磋商后，卫生部长简·埃利森表示政府终究打算继续推进。现在我们被告知，议会解散前，国会议员将在3月进行自由投票。

Parliament has in fact already authorised the government to tame the tobacco trade. MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of Labour amendments to the children and families bill last February that included the power to regulate for plain packaging. With sufficient will in Downing Street this would have been done already. But strength of will is the missing ingredient where Mr. Cameron and public health are concerned. His attitude to state intervention has looked confused ever since his bizarre 2006 lament (叹惜) that chocolate oranges placed seductively at supermarket check-outs fueled obesity.

事实上，议会已经授权政府驯服烟草贸易。国会议员在去年二月以压倒性多数投票支持工党对《儿童和家庭法案》的修正案，其中包括监管朴素包装的权力。如果唐宁街有足够的意志力，这早已完成。但在涉及卡梅伦先生和公共卫生时，意志力是缺失的要素。他对国家干预的态度自2006年他奇怪地哀叹超市收银台处诱人放置的巧克力橘子助长肥胖以来，一直显得困惑。

The government has moved reluctantly into a sensible public health policy, but with such obvious over-cautiousness that any political credit due belongs to the opposition. Without sustained external pressure it seems certain Mr. Cameron would still be hooked on the interests of big tobacco companies.

政府不情愿地转向了明智的公共卫生政策，但如此明显的过度谨慎使得任何应得的政治功劳都归于反对派。如果没有持续的外部压力，卡梅伦先生似乎仍然沉迷于大烟草公司的利益。