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:
【选项释义】
The word “decriminalization” in the first paragraph means _____. 第一段中“decriminalization”一词的意思是_____。
A. reduction of the criminal penalties for something A. 减轻对某事的刑事处罚
B. ceasing to treat something as legal B. 不再将某事视为合法
C. elimination of the criminal penalties for something C. 取消对某事的刑事处罚
D. application of legal sanctions against a crime D. 对犯罪实施法律制裁
【考查点】词义推测题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词the first paragraph可以确定答案所在区域为第一段。根据第一段信息可知“While”的从句提到了“drugs”，而主句提到了“these same drugs”，由此可知此处的“While”表示对比，因此前后句存在相反的语义。由从句中的关键信息“the United States waged its war on drugs（美国发动了毒品战争）”、“including the imposition of severe penalties（包括施加严厉的惩罚）”，可知从句对于“drugs”表示了否定，因此可推测主句会对其表示肯定，所以“decriminalization”的含义为“取消对某事的刑事处罚”，正确答案为C选项。
【干扰项排除】A、B、D选项均属于曲解原文。
第2题:
【选项释义】
Dutch officials thought that cannabis users _____. 荷兰官员认为大麻使用者_____。
A. were improperly stigmatized as drug addicts by other people A. 被其他人不恰当地污蔑为吸毒者
B. could not possibly traffic heroin, cocaine or other drugs B. 不可能贩卖海洛因、可卡因或其他毒品
C. would not become addicted to it even if they take large amounts C. 即使大量吸食也不会上瘾
D. might content themselves with it and stay away from more addictive drugs D. 可能满足于此，远离更容易上瘾的毒品
【考查点】判断推理题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词Dutch officials可以确定答案所在区域为第二段。根据第二段关键信息：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（荷兰官员认为，将大麻合法化——从而将软毒品市场与硬毒品市场分开——将减少大麻使用者与海洛因和可卡因使用者接触的可能性。因此，尝试大麻的年轻人不太可能卷入更危险或更容易上瘾的毒品），因此可推测：荷兰官员认为大麻使用者“可能满足于此，远离更容易上瘾的毒品”，所以正确答案为D选项。
【干扰项排除】A、B、C选项均属于曲解原文。
第3题:
【选项释义】
Which of the following statements is NOT true? 以下哪项陈述不是正确的？
A. Decriminalizing cannabis use would bring more revenue to the government. A. 将吸食大麻合法化会给政府带来更多的收入。
B. Cannabis use in the Netherlands is rather prevalent. B. 荷兰的大麻使用相当普遍。
C. The Dutch government believed that cannabis was not as harmful as heroin. C. 荷兰政府认为大麻不像海洛因那样有害。
D. The Dutch believed that punishment wasn’t a practical means to tackle the drug problem. D. 荷兰人认为惩罚不是解决毒品问题的实际手段。
【考查点】判断推理题。
【解题思路】A选项“将吸食大麻合法化会给政府带来更多的收入”在原文中没有提及，因此可推测该选项陈述不正确，符合题干，所以正确答案为A选项。
【干扰项排除】
B选项“荷兰的大麻使用相当普遍”，根据第三段关键信息：That is, the Dutch admitted that cannabis use had gained an extensive foothold in their society（也就是说，荷兰人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），可知该选项正确，属于反向干扰；
C选项“荷兰政府认为大麻不像海洛因那样有害”，根据第二段关键信息：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（荷兰官员认为，将大麻合法化——从而将软毒品市场与硬毒品市场分开——将减少大麻使用者与海洛因和可卡因使用者接触的可能性。因此，尝试大麻的年轻人不太可能卷入更危险或更容易上瘾的毒品），可知该选项正确，属于反向干扰；
D选项“荷兰人认为惩罚不是解决毒品问题的实际手段”，根据第三段关键信息：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（他们认为通过教育和“用户友好”的治疗方案来减少与毒品使用相关的个人和社会危害比依靠惩罚措施要现实得多），可知该选项正确，属于反向干扰。
第4题:
【选项释义】
The author considers the Dutch drug policies _____. 作者认为荷兰的毒品政策_____。
A. successful although there are some negative effects A. 虽然有一些负面影响，但很成功
B. too lenient in terms of punishment B. 惩罚过于宽松
C. unreasonable considering the Dutch homogeneous society C. 考虑到荷兰的单一社会，不合理
D. better than those implemented in the United States D. 比美国实施的政策好
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词the Dutch drug policies可以确定答案所在区域为最后一段。根据最后一段第一句：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（荷兰的毒品法律已经实施了20多年，对荷兰社会的负面影响似乎很小），可知正确答案为A选项。
【干扰项排除】
B选项“惩罚过于宽松”，原文没有提及，属于无中生有；
C选项“考虑到荷兰的单一社会，不合理”，根据最后一段关键信息：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（荷兰社会非常单一，即几乎没有种族、民族、阶级、宗教或亚文化多样性，荷兰社会的传统价值观和规范得到广泛认同），结合该段首句说负面影响不大，可知在其单一的社会中是合理的，该选项属于曲解原文；
D选项“比美国实施的政策好”，根据最后一段最后一句：The model used by the Dutch for regulating marijuana may not work as effectively in the United States（荷兰用来管制大麻的模式在美国可能不那么有效），可知该选项属于曲解原文。
第5题:
【选项释义】
From the passage, we can infer that _____. 从文章中，我们可以推断出_____。
A. it is illegal to sell cannabis in the Netherlands A. 在荷兰出售大麻是非法的
B. marijuana is available in Dutch supermarkets B. 在荷兰的超市里可以买到大麻
C. selling cannabis without official permission may be punished C. 未经官方许可出售大麻可能会受到惩罚
D. large doses of marijuana in coffee shops in Amsterdam are available D. 在阿姆斯特丹的咖啡店可以买到大剂量的大麻
【考查点】判断推理题。
【解题思路】根据第四段关键信息：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（然而，咖啡店是受到监管的。店内不得销售或使用其他非法毒品，商店不得做广告，也不得向16岁以下的人出售大麻。违反规定可能导致罚款和关闭咖啡店），由此可推断“未经官方许可出售大麻可能会受到惩罚”，所以正确答案为C选项。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“在荷兰出售大麻是非法的”，根据第二段关键信息：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（荷兰官员认为，将大麻合法化——从而将软毒品市场与硬毒品市场分开——将减少大麻使用者与海洛因和可卡因使用者接触的可能性。因此，尝试大麻的年轻人不太可能卷入更危险或更容易上瘾的毒品），可知该选项属于曲解原文；
B选项“在荷兰的超市里可以买到大麻”，原文没有说明在荷兰的超市可以买到大麻，该选项属于无中生有；
D选项“在阿姆斯特丹的咖啡店可以买到大剂量的大麻”，根据第二段关键信息：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)（他们把控制硬性毒品的生产、进口和贩运作为执法的重中之重，基本上忽视了少量大麻（25克或更少）的销售或使用），可知该选项属于曲解原文。
