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  12
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] The author suggests Mr. Jenkins______to win public support.
选项 A、release pot users from prison
B、cut the maximum sentence for pot users from twelve months to six
C、order pot users to do some unpaid work in the community but do not put them in jail
D、fine pot traffickers heavily and put them in jail
答案 C
解析 方略推断题型，答案是C。本题要求推断政治人物杰金斯为赢得民众支持可能对法律进行何种修正。根据线索词Mr．Jenkins可将关注点锁定在第三段。与第五题相比，选择项涉及的信息点更多，散布于第三段全段。该段基本遵循提出问题一分析问题一解决问题的三段论结构，因此涉及解决方略可重点关注段落的最后部分。It is right一词表明从此处起作者开始阐明立场，可见作者观点如下：职业制贩大麻者固然应当重罚重刑，但对非职业参与者而言，判令其从事一定量的社区工作比收监更为合适。再来对比四个选择项：A项第一不符合常识逻辑，第二不属于原文涉及的“法律修正”的范畴；B项是上届保守党政府已经采取的举措；D项亦属于既成事实；C项最符合题意。本题核心：此类综合题型应重点把握所涉及原文的整体逻辑，不可根据孤立的一两句话得出片面推理。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3921091.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)