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] According to the passage,______is/are most likely to be against legalizing pot.
选项 A、the Principal of King’s College
B、Columbia University scientists
C、Mr. Jenkins
D、the author
答案 D
解析 态度推断题型，答案是D。本题考查对大麻合法化问题的态度，因涉及不同人物，故需通读原文，逐一锁定相关信息点。A项的陈述可见于第一段，支持大麻合法化。B项的信息可见于第二段，研究结果表明大麻可能影响人体细胞免疫系统并导致代谢性疾病，尽管其研究本身可以为反对大麻合法化提供科学依据，但不可据此推定其自身的立场一定是反对大麻合法化，因为作者援引此例证的原因恰恰在于科学家及其研究行为的客观中立性，原文对科学家本身立场的倾向性并无涉及。C项信息可见于第三段，段首提及杰金斯若想维持声誉，推行改革，需对原有法律进行修正，可见其不会断然反对大麻合法化。D项的态度需要通读原文做出判断，文章采用了欲扬先抑的论证逻辑，从“Any responsible Government would hold back in such circumstances”一句可明确推知作者对于大麻合法化的反对态度。纵向比较可见，文章作者才是四个选项中在大麻合法化问题上反对倾向最明显的人。本题核心：在处理推断题型时应避免凭空推测，力争做到有原文实据可循，在本题中不宜将研究者的研究结果与个人倾向混为一谈。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3921094.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)