-=MAPLE GALAXY=-

sunnyqsvxc

Li Xingwen (Beijing Youth Daily): From a moral perspective,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], tobacco companies’ title sponsorship of Hope schools is reproachable. While big cities have tightened restrictions on tobacco advertising,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], tobacco companies have turned to economically backward areas, particularly Hope schools that are in urgent need of financial support. It is immoral to take advantage of backward areas just because they lack money.
A medical report once revealed an experiment based on two groups of teenagers. One liked Formula One Racing and one didn’t. Years later,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych],[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], 17 percent of teenagers who watched the sport often became smokers while the proportion for those who didn’t watch it was only 1 percent. The reason was major advertising sponsors for Formula One Racing were world-famous tobacco companies. From cities to the countryside,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], from adults to minors and from developed regions to underdeveloped regions,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], tobacco companies have consistently re-targeted their advertisements.
The government should not tolerate their expansion and particularly their practice to “poison” young students. Tobacco companies are making profits at the cost of people’s health and thus it has the obligation and responsibility to pay back society. If they are really interested in charity and social responsibilities, they should quietly leave the money behind and then quietly go away. As for the extremely lucrative tobacco companies, to build several primary schools is a piece of cake. If stringent restrictions do not come in time, they will be able to change schools into vivid advertisements of tobacco products.
A ban on tobacco sponsorship of education is necessary. Even if concerned schools confront temporary financial difficulties, it is more important to prevent the young generation from being “poisoned.” Yorkshire has the greatest regional concentration of smokers, at 25% of the population; London and the east of England bring up the rear at 19% each. As for pregnant women, 14% continue to smoke, and that figure is based on people filling in their own forms, so it’s safe to assume it’s actually higher. By far the most clear-cut differences surround how smoking rates reflect the lifestyles of the UK’s social classes.
Among young illicit smokers, take-up rates across income and wealth divides are reasonably similar,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], but once adulthood kicks in, the better-off tend to quit, while those lower down the social scale are much more likely to carry on. The fifth of the population with the highest incomes register a smoking rate of 15%, whereas in the lowest income group,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], the figure is nearly twice that – and though smoking rates over the last decade have come down among the population as a whole, those classed as “manual workers” have only managed a paltry drop of two percentage points, from 31% to 29%. And now, as smokers shiver outside pubs, clubs and factories, the government is coming for them – though this time, using rhetoric more cautious and cuddly than the stereotype of some great anti-smoking clampdown might suggest.