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] Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?
选项 A、Legalizing pot would generate more tax revenue.
B、Legalizing pot would bring more investment in university research.
C、Using cannabis leads to leukemia, a type of cancer caused by the rapid increase of white blood cells.
D、Using cannabis leads to leukemia, a type of cancer caused by the rapid decrease of white blood cells.
答案 A
解析 细节推断题型，答案是A。本题考查文本细节，其中A、B选项涉及第一段信息，关键句为“the Principal of King’s College，London，who wanted to see the drug taxes and proceeds used for university research”，此句暗含的逻辑可明确为：大麻合法化会带来更多税收，国王学院校长希望将征税用于高校科研。由此可见A为合理推断，B将个人愿望混淆为必然事实，属于过度推断。C、D选项涉及第二段信息，根据关键句“white blood cells of cannabis users were 40 per cent less effective in fighting viruses than those of non-cannabis users”可知，吸食大麻会导致白细胞抗病能力下降，C、D选项属于过度推断。本题核心：注意挖掘原文的暗含逻辑，谨防过度推断。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3921095.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)