郭慶民考研英語閱讀第二篇及譯文與疑難解析_跨考網

　　郭慶民閱讀理解第二篇及譯文與疑難長句注解和題解

　　Should the United States end its three-quarters-of-a-century-long prohibition on drugs? Outraged by the seemingly endless deaths, violence, crime, corruption, border searches, and social costs generated by world drug trafficking, a growing number of public officials and scholars are arguing that it is time to consider the possibilities of selective drug legalization. The legalization argument rests on the proposition that drug laws—not drugs themselves—cause the greatest harm to society. If drugs were legal, the argument goes, drug black markets worth tens of billions of dollars would evaporate, the empires of drug traffickers would collapse, and addicts would stop committing street crimes to support their habit. But legalization would not only take the profit out of drug trafficking. Presumably police officers, courts, and prisons would no longer be overwhelmed with drug cases. And the nation would be spared the poisoning strains on its relations with important and otherwise friendly Latin American and Asian nations.

　　Most advocates of legalization do not condone, let alone want to encourage, drug use. Rather they believe that making drugs a criminal matter has made the problem worse. They acknowledge that the nation would still have massive public health problems on its hands, but it would not be compounded by a massive crime problem, a massive corruption problem, and a massive foreign policy problem. Government could also tax the sale of drugs and use the proceeds to finance drug prevention and treatment programs. And civil libertarians cite another benefit: an end to violations of basic individual freedom, such as drug testing, that derive from excessive zeal for winning the drug war. In any event, proponents of legalization say the war on drugs is doomed. So long as there is demand for cocaine, heroin, and other drugs, someone is going to supply them, legally or illegally.

　　Opponents of legalization regard the abandonment of antidrug laws as a frightening and dangerous policy, one morally equivalent to giving societal approval to what currently is taboo behaviour. With the legal stigma gone, opponents say, more law-abiding citizens would be tempted to experiment with drugs. More-over, highly damaging substances would be cheaper, purer, and more widely available, thus causing a sharp jump in addiction, hospital costs, overdose deaths, family and social violence, and property damage. Now, at least, the expense and danger of purchasing illegal drugs limit the amount most people use.

　　There is little information available that sheds light on what would happen to American society if cocaine and heroin were legalized. Indeed, the idea of legalization has been so far outside the realm of popular acceptance that virtually no financing of research into its potential effects has taken place. Of interest, however, is the fact that both advocates and opponents of drug legalization look to the nation's experience with Prohibition as providing ammunition for their respective cases.

　　1. The central opposition to drug prohibition is that .

　?。跘］ it has caused the crime problem. ［B］ it has wasted a lot of legal resources

　?。跜］ it has caused border disputes ［D］ it has caused social problems

　　2. It is implied in the first paragraph that .

　?。跘］ drug legalization is an impossibly gigantic task

　　［B］ Asia is an important provider of drugs in America

　?。跜］ drug-related corruption happens mainly on lawmakers

　?。跠］ drug trafficking is the worst crime in America

　　3.Which of the following problems is NOT mentioned by the advocates of drug legalization as the possible outcome of drug prohibition?

　　［A］ The crime problem. ［B］ The public health problem.

　?。跜］ The foreign policy problem ［D］ The corruption problem.

　　4.According to the opponents of drug legalization, one of the reasons for fewer cases of drug abuse is .

　?。跘］ the damaging effect of drug addition

　?。跙］ the criminal rate associated with drug use

　?。跜］ the presence of antidrug law

　　［D］ the effective execution of government policies

　　5. We learn from the last paragraph that .

　?。跘］ the opponents and advocates of drug legalization actually share some positions

　　［B］ prohibiting drug use will have the same effect as the prohibition of alcohol

　?。跜］ the effect of drug legalization on society is not well borne out yet

　?。跠］ the public will not agree to fund research into the effects of drugs

　　1. prohibition n. 禁止，禁令

　　2. outrage vt. 使憤慨；違犯

　　3. violence n. 暴力，暴行；猛烈

　　4. corruption n. 腐敗，墮落

　　5. border n. 邊沿，邊界

　　6. generate vt. 產生，形成，引起；生育

　　7. public official政府官員

　　8. rest on 依靠, 建立在……上

　　9. evaporate vi. 蒸發(fā)，消失

　　10. empire n. 帝國

　　11. addict n. 上癮的人 vt. 使上癮，使沉湎

　　12. commit vt. 犯(罪、錯誤等)；致力于；承諾

　　13. presumably n. 可能，大概，推測起來

　　14. overwhelm vt. 淹沒；制服，壓倒

　　15. strain n. 緊張，張力；損傷

　　16. advocate n. 提倡者，支持者 vt. 擁護，提倡，主張

　　17. condone vt. 寬恕，原諒

　　18. let alone更不用說

　　19. acknowledge vt. 承認；答謝

　　20. massive a. 巨大的，大量的

　　21. compound vt. 增加，使更復雜 n. 化合物

　　22. finance vt. 為……提供資金 n. 財政，金融

　　23. civil a.公民的，國民的；國內的；民事的；文職的；有禮貌的

　　24. violation n. 違反，違背；侵害

　　25. excessive a. 過多的, 過分的

　　26. zeal n. 熱心, 熱情

　　27. in any event無論如何

　　28. proponent n. 建議者, 支持者

　　29. doom vt. 注定；使……遭厄運 n. 厄運，死亡

　　30. so long as 只要

　　31. cocaine n. 可卡因

　　32. heroin n. 海洛因

　　33. abandonment n. 放棄；放任

　　34. equivalent a. 相對的，等同的

　　35. societal a. 社會的

　　36. taboo n. 禁忌，避諱

　　37. opponent n. 反對者，對手

　　38. abide vt. 遵守；忍受

　　39. tempt vt. 誘惑，吸引

　　40. shed/throw/cast light on在……上給人以啟發(fā)，對……做出解釋

　　41. realm n. 領域；王國

　　42. virtually ad. 事實上, 實質上

　　43. respective a. 分別的, 各自的

　　1. drug trafficking 毒品交易

　　2. proceeds 收入, 收益

　　3. libertarian 自由意志論者

　　4. stigma 符號, 標記

　　5. Prohibition 禁酒令：指美國第18條修正案禁止生產和銷售烈性酒實施的時期(1920~1933年)

　　6. ammunition 軍火，彈藥

　　If drugs were legal … habit.(第一段)

　　本句是虛擬語氣。

　　美國應該終止其實行了四分之三個世紀之久的禁毒運動嗎？跨國毒品交易導致了看起來是無休止的死亡、暴力、犯罪、腐敗、邊界巡邏和社會成本，越來越多的政府官員和學者對此感到憤慨，他們爭辯說，是該考慮有選擇地把毒品合法化的時候了。贊同將毒品合法化的論點基于這樣一個命題：反毒品法——而不是毒品本身——對社會造成的危害最大。他們爭論說，如果將毒品合法化，價值數百億美元的毒品黑市將會消失，毒品交易的帝國將會崩潰，上癮者將不會再到街頭犯罪以滿足自己的毒癮。但是，將毒品合法化將不僅僅能剝奪販賣毒品的利潤，而且警察、法院、監(jiān)獄將再也不會整日與毒品案件打交道。美國也能緩解它同拉丁美洲和亞洲國家有害的緊張關系，它本來可以同這些重要國家保持友好關系的。

　　多數贊同合法化的人不認可吸毒，更別說去鼓勵吸毒了。相反，他們認為將吸毒看做是犯罪只會使問題變得更糟。他們承認，(毒品合法化之后)美國仍然存在巨大的公共健康問題，但除此之外不會再有巨大的犯罪問題、巨大的腐敗問題和巨大的對外政策問題。政府也能征收毒品銷售稅，并用該收益去資助制止毒品和戒毒的項目。而且，崇尚民權的自由論者還提到另外一個好處：結束侵犯個人基本權利的做法，如吸毒測試，這些做法來源于人們極力想贏得禁毒戰(zhàn)的思想。總之，毒品合法化的支持者認為禁毒的戰(zhàn)爭必敗。只要存在對可卡因、海洛因和其他毒品的需求，就會有人來提供它們，不管是通過合法的還是非法的途徑。

　　毒品合法化的反對者把摒棄反毒品法看做是一個可怕而危險的政策，在道德上無異于給目前禁忌的行為以社會認可。如果這種法律符號沒有了，更多守法的公民可能就會受到誘惑，嘗試吸毒。而且，那些極其有害的物質就會變得更便宜、更純、更易得，由此上癮者的數量和

　　如果把可卡因和海洛因合法化，對美國社會會造成什么影響？由于缺乏信息，這還很難說。的確，毒品合法化的想法目前遠遠超出了公眾能接受的程度，所以，幾乎沒有人肯出資研究它的潛在效應。但是有趣的是這樣一個事實：毒品合法化的支持者和反對者都把美國禁酒令的歷史看做是為他們各自的觀點提供了有力的武器。

???