2. 职称英语
  3. To Legalize Pot or Not Legalizing pot is not now as ra

To Legalize Pot or Not Legalizing pot is not now as ra

游客2025-01-20  16
问题                        To Legalize Pot or Not
   Legalizing pot is not now as radical a proposal as it might seem. All manner of "establishment" figures have supported similar plans: from a Presidential Commission in the US to the Principal of King’s College, London, who wanted to see the drug taxes and proceeds used for university research. There are, indeed, several unsatisfactory problems created by the present ban on cannabis: the law is widely disregarded and thus helps to bring other laws into disrespect; it can lead to unnecessary — and possibly illegal — police searches; and it increases friction between the police and minority groups. Finally, if drugs such as cigarettes and alcohol are permitted, then why not pot?
   The last point is easy to counter: quasi-Government approval for two harmful drugs is no argument for permitting a third. Unlike drink and tobacco, there is still some doubt about the harmful effects of cannabis, but research here is in its early days. Already Columbia University scientists in New York have completed one project which suggests that the drug could open the door to metabolic diseases, including cancer, by affecting cellular immunity. The team found that white blood cells of cannabis users were 40 per cent less effective in fighting viruses than those of non-cannabis users. Any responsible Government would hold back in such circumstances; not least because the fad appears to be on the wane. To legalize it now might promote the drug just as its use was beginning to decline.
   But if Mr. Jenkins wants to maintain his reputation as a reformer, there are useful amendments he could make to the law. Far too many people are still ending up in prison — over 100 in 1972 — merely for using the drug. The last Conservative Government finally recognized a sharp distinction which must be made between users and pushers, and cut the maximum sentence for users from twelve months to six. But is prison necessary at all for users, particularly now that criminologists have demonstrated so starkly the damage that prison can cause? In the American state of Oregon, cannabis users are treated like traffic offenders, fined heavily but are never sent to prison. It is right that the big pushers, coining thousands of pounds from their trade, should receive heavy sentences. But the courts must also take note that there are two types of pushers: the professional and the amateur. The latter is often as much a user as seller in the drug sub-culture. A community service order, which would allow an amateur pusher a chance to contribute to society, seems a far more appropriate sentence than prison. [br] In the American state of Oregon, people are able to______.
选项 A、sell cannabis without fear of jail time.
B、use cannabis without fear of jail time.
C、produce cannabis without fear of heavy fine.
D、break traffic laws without fear of heavy fine.
答案 B
解析 行为推断题型，答案是B。本题考查美国俄勒冈州人们的行为权限，四个选择项分别为：A“不会因为售卖大麻而坐牢”，B“不会因为食用大麻而坐牢”，C“不会因为制造大麻而被重罚”，D“不会因为破坏交通法而被重罚”。原文信息点相对简单集中，根据线索词the American state of Oregon可锁定关键句“Cannabis users are treated like traffic offenders，fined heavily but are never sent to prison．”，与选择项一一对应可知，只有B选项完全符合推理逻辑。本题核心：关注原文线索句的细节陈述，如原句的主语cannabis users是选择项设置障碍的关键点，据此方可完成正确推理。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3921090.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)