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.
But that isn’t why the government—under pressure from cancer charities, health workers and the Labour party—has agreed to legislate for standardized 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）.
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. Evidence from Australia suggests plain packaging pushes society further along that road. Since tobacco as one of the biggest causes of premature death in the UK, a measure that tames the habit even by a fraction is worth trying.
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 news 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 voice before parliament is dissolved in March.
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 (叹息) that chocolate oranges placed seductively at supermarket check-outs fueled obesity.
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.
46. What do chain smokers think of cigarette packaging?
A) Fancy packaging can help to engage new smokers.
B) It has little to do with the quality or taste of cigarettes.
C) Plain packaging discourages non-smokers from taking up smoking.
D) It has little impact on their decision whether or not to quit smoking.
47. What has the UK government agreed to do concerning tobacco packaging?
A) Pass a law to standardise cigarette packaging.
B) Rid cigarette cartons of all advertisements.
C) Subsidise companies to adopt plain packaging.
D) Reclassify cigarettes according to packaging.
48. What has happened in Australia where plain packaging is implemented?
A) Premature death rates resulting from smoking have declined.
B) The number of smokers has dropped more sharply than in the UK.
C) The sales of tobacco substitutes have increased considerably.
D) Cigarette sales have been falling far more quickly than in the UK.
49. Why it taken so long for the UK government to consider plain packaging?
A) Prime Minister Cameron has been reluctant to take action.
B) There is strong opposition from veteran nicotine addicts.
C) Many Members of Parliament are addicted to smoking.
D) Pressure from tobacco manufacturers remains strong.
50. What did Cameron say about chocolate oranges at supermarket checkouts?
A) They fueled a lot of controversy.
B) They made more British people obese.
C) They attracted a lot of smokers.
D) They had certain ingredients missing.
解析：答案定位在文章第一段，其中“veteran nicotine addict”直接对应题目中的chain smokers，而根据that 从句内的“plays no role in the decision to keep smoking”就可以选出正确选项D：
解析：答案定位在第二段的第一句及第三段的最后一句：在第二段中，But that is not why the government - under pressure from .... party - has agreed to legislate for standardised packaging. 纵然原句意思为“这并不是政府同意针对香烟的包装立法”；在第三段中“Since tobacco is one of the biggest causes of premature death in the UK, a measure that tames the habits even by a fraction is worth trying”，在英国由于吸烟而导致早产儿大批死亡，英国政府帮这些老烟枪们改变吸烟的嗜好的任何尝试都是值得的；因此，答案就尤为明显了，因此补办选出答案A：“英国政府就香烟包装的标准化通过了法案”。
解析：答案定位在第三段的第三句“this approach has led over time to a fall in smoking numbers having roughly halved since the 1970s. Evidence from Australia suggests plain packaging pushes society further along that road.”这一方法使得吸烟者数量锐减，尤其是在澳大利亚而言，这一方法颇见成效。这样选项B就尤其明显了。
解析：答案定位在第四段“David Cameron’s election campaign........(David Cameron denied...in legislative program me)”及最后一句话中“now we are told Members of .......is dissolved in March”。在特殊符号里“括号”中，首相Cameron否认在其顾问在外的经济利益与法案改变之间有联系，并在最后一句中指出将会让国会议员投票。由此答案就尤为明显，可以定位到A选项。
解析：答案定位在第四段的最后一句“his attitude to state intervention... checkouts fueled obesity”，答案由“checkouts fueled obesity”体现：“检测出导致肥胖”。由此，答案选C。