While the United States waged its war on drugs, including the imposition of severe penalties on people convicted of possession of cannabis (marijuana and hashish), the Netherlands implemented a partial decriminalization of the personal use of these same drugs.
Beginning in the mid-1970s, Dutch drug policies were reformed in an attempt to limit the negative and stigmatizing effects of drug use on individual users. The Dutch did this by making a clear separation between “hard” drugs—heroin, cocaine, LSD, and amphetamines—and “soft” drugs—marijuana, hashish, and mushrooms. They gave top law enforcement priority to controlling the production, importation, and trafficking of hard drugs and essentially ignored the sale or use of small amounts of cannabis (25 grams or less). Dutch officials believed that decriminalizing cannabis—thereby separating the soft drug market from the market for harder drugs―would reduce the likelihood that marijuana users would come into contact with heroin and cocaine users. Thus, young people experimenting with cannabis would be less likely to become involved with more dangerous or addictive drugs.
The Dutch drug policies were also aimed at normalizing the drug problem. That is, the Dutch admitted that cannabis use had gained an extensive foothold in their society, and they felt that it was far more realistic to try to reduce the personal and social harms associated with drug use through education and “user-friendly” treatment programs than to rely on punitive measures.
In Amsterdam, the country’s largest city, there are about 350 coffee shops where people can buy and use marijuana, hashish, and mushrooms. The coffee shops, however, are regulated. No other illegal drugs may be sold or used in them, the shops may not advertise, and they may not sell cannabis to people under age 16. Violations may result in fines and the closing of the coffee shop.
The Dutch drug laws have been in effect for more than 20 years and any negative impact on Dutch society appears to have only been modest. However, it may not be wise to make direct comparisons between the Netherlands and the United States. Dutch society is very homogeneous; that is, there is little racial, ethnic, class, religious, or subcultural diversity, and the conventional values and norms of Dutch society are widely shared. American society, on the other hand, is very heterogeneous, and its extensive subcultural diversity leads to less consensus regarding norms and values. The model used by the Dutch for regulating marijuana may not work as effectively in the United States.
1.The word “decriminalization” in the first paragraph means（ ）.
2.Dutch officials thought that cannabis users （ ）.
3.Which of the following statements is NOT true?
4.The author considers the Dutch drug policies （ ）.
5.From the passage, we can infer that（ ）.
问题1选项
A.reduction of the criminal penalties for something
B.ceasing to treat something as legal
C.elimination of the criminal penalties for something
D.application of legal sanctions against a crime
问题2选项
A.were improperly stigmatized as drug addicts by other people
B.could not possibly traffic heroin, cocaine or other drugs
C.would not become addicted to it even if they take large amounts
D.might content themselves with it and stay away from more addictive drugs
问题3选项
A.Decriminalizing cannabis use would bring more revenue to the government.
B.Cannabis use in the Netherlands is rather prevalent.
C.The Dutch government believed that cannabis was not as harmful as heroin.
D.The Dutch believed that punishment wasn’t a practical means to tackle the drug problem.
问题4选项
A.successful although there are some negative effects
B.too lenient in terms of punishment
C.unreasonable considering the Dutch homogeneous society
D.better than those implemented in the United States
问题5选项
A.it is illegal to sell cannabis in the Netherlands
B.marijuana is available in Dutch supermarkets
C.selling cannabis without official permission may be punished
D.large doses of marijuana in coffee shops in Amsterdam are available
第1题:C
第2题:D
第3题:A
第4题:A
第5题:C
第1题:
试题解析：词义推测题。本题是问“decriminalization”一词在第一段的意思。从上下文可知，荷兰政府区分了致瘾药品和不会成瘾的药品，并将不会成瘾药品的买卖合法化，所以可以推测“decriminalization”词义为“合法化”，C选项“取消对某事物的刑事处罚”。
第2题:
试题解析：推理判断题。本题是问荷兰的政府认为大麻使用者如何。由第二段中的“Thus, young people experimenting with cannabis would be less likely to become involved with more dangerous or addictive drugs. 因此，被尝试大麻的年轻人不太可能涉及更危险的或者成瘾的药物。”，可知D选项“可能会满足于此，远离更容易上瘾的毒品”正确。
第3题:
试题解析：推理判断题。由文章第三段“the Dutch admitted that cannabis use had gained an extensive foothold in their society, and they felt that it was far more realistic to try to reduce the personal and social harms associated with drug use through education and ‘user-friendly’ treatment programs than to rely on punitive measure. 荷兰承认，大麻的使用已经在他们的社会中获得了广泛的立足点，他们认为，通过教育和“人性化”的治疗方案来减少与毒品使用有关的个人和社会危害远比依赖惩罚措施要现实得多”和最后一段“The Dutch drug laws have been in effect for more than 20 years and any negative impact on Dutch society appears to have only been modest. 荷兰的毒品法已经实施了20多年，对荷兰社会的任何负面影响似乎都不大。”得知，荷兰政府运用人性化的措施且该项法律的副作用是很小的，B选项“荷兰吸食大麻相当普遍。”，C选项“荷兰政府认为大麻的危害没有海洛因那么大。”和D选项“荷兰人认为惩罚并不是解决毒品问题的实际手段。”正确；A选项“大麻合法化将为政府带来更多的收入。”的叙述错误，符合题意。
第4题:
试题解析：细节事实题。本题是问作者认为荷兰毒品政策如何。由最后一段中的“The Dutch drug laws have been in effect for more than 20 years and any negative impact on Dutch society appears to have only been modest荷兰的药物法已经成功实施20多年，即便有反作用，但算是很轻微。”可知A选项“成功，尽管有一些负面影响”正确。
第5题:
试题解析：细节事实题。由文章倒数第二段中“In Amsterdam, the country’s largest city, there are about 350 coffee shops where people can buy and use marijuana, hashish, and mushrooms. The coffee shops, however, are regulated. No other illegal drugs may be sold or used in them, the shops may not advertise, and they may not sell cannabis to people under age 16. Violations may result in fines and the closing of the coffee shop. 在荷兰最大的城市阿姆斯特丹，大约有350家咖啡馆，人们可以在这里购买和使用大麻、哈希什和迷幻蘑菇。然而，咖啡店是受监管的。其他违禁药品不得销售、使用，商店不得做广告，不得向未满16岁的未成年人出售大麻。违反规定可能会导致罚款和咖啡店的关闭。”可知荷兰对药物销售有明文规定，所以C选项“未经官方许可出售大麻可能会受到惩罚”正确。
