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  3
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 Paragraph 2, the idea of legalizing pot should be opposed because______.
选项 A、the government has already approved two other harmful drugs
B、People who smoke cannabis might have a greater tendency to develop metabolic diseases.
C、fewer people are using cannabis
D、more people are using cannabis
答案 B
解析 细节题型，答案是B。根据题干提示，本题解题点位于第二段，涉及作者反对大麻合法化的原因。其中D选项不符合原文陈述。从“quasi-Government approval for two harmful drugs is no argument for permitting a third”一句可知，A选项符合原文陈述；从“the fad appears to be on the wane”和“its use was beginning to decline”可知，C选项符合原文陈述，但两者均非作者反对大麻合法化的原因。本段主要的论证部分为哥大科学家针对大麻的研究结果，作者通过援引该例证来证明大麻的危害性，进而支持自己反对大麻合法化的观点，可见B选项最符合题意。本题核心：应注意符合原文的选项未必全是正确选项，宜加强针对性，重点关注题干要求。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3921088.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)