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 .
［A］ it has caused the crime problem. ［B］ it has wasted a lot of legal resources
［C］ it has caused border disputes ［D］ it has caused social problems
2. It is implied in the first paragraph that .
［A］ drug legalization is an impossibly gigantic task
［B］ Asia is an important provider of drugs in America
［C］ drug-related corruption happens mainly on lawmakers
［D］ 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.
［C］ 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 .
［A］ the damaging effect of drug addition
［B］ the criminal rate associated with drug use
［C］ the presence of antidrug law
［D］ the effective execution of government policies
5. We learn from the last paragraph that .
［A］ 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
［C］ the effect of drug legalization on society is not well borne out yet
［D］ the public will not agree to fund research into the effects of drugs
1. prohibition n. 禁止，禁令
2. outrage vt. 使愤慨；违犯
3. violence n. 暴力，暴行；猛烈
4. corruption n. 腐败，堕落
5. border n. 边沿，边界
6. generate vt. 产生，形成，引起；生育
7. public official政府官员
8. rest on 依靠, 建立在……上
9. evaporate vi. 蒸发，消失
10. empire n. 帝国
11. addict n. 上瘾的人 vt. 使上瘾，使沉湎
12. commit vt. 犯（罪、错误等）；致力于；承诺
13. presumably n. 可能，大概，推测起来
14. overwhelm vt. 淹没；制服，压倒
15. strain n. 紧张，张力；损伤
16. advocate n. 提倡者，支持者 vt. 拥护，提倡，主张
17. condone vt. 宽恕，原谅
18. let alone更不用说
19. acknowledge vt. 承认；答谢
20. massive a. 巨大的，大量的
21. compound vt. 增加，使更复杂 n. 化合物
22. finance vt. 为……提供资金 n. 财政，金融
23. civil a.公民的，国民的；国内的；民事的；文职的；有礼貌的
24. violation n. 违反，违背；侵害
25. excessive a. 过多的, 过分的
26. zeal n. 热心, 热情
27. in any event无论如何
28. proponent n. 建议者, 支持者
29. doom vt. 注定；使……遭厄运 n. 厄运，死亡
30. so long as 只要
31. cocaine n. 可卡因
32. heroin n. 海洛因
33. abandonment n. 放弃；放任
34. equivalent a. 相对的，等同的
35. societal a. 社会的
36. taboo n. 禁忌，避讳
37. opponent n. 反对者，对手
38. abide vt. 遵守；忍受
39. tempt vt. 诱惑，吸引
40. shed/throw/cast light on在……上给人以启发，对……做出解释
41. realm n. 领域；王国
42. virtually ad. 事实上, 实质上
43. respective a. 分别的, 各自的
1. drug trafficking 毒品交易
2. proceeds 收入, 收益
3. libertarian 自由意志论者
4. stigma 符号, 标记
5. Prohibition 禁酒令：指美国第18条修正案禁止生产和销售烈性酒实施的时期（1920~1933年）
6. ammunition 军火，弹药
If drugs were legal … habit.（第一段）
本句是虚拟语气。
美国应该终止其实行了四分之三个世纪之久的禁毒运动吗？跨国毒品交易导致了看起来是无休止的死亡、暴力、犯罪、腐败、边界巡逻和社会成本，越来越多的政府官员和学者对此感到愤慨，他们争辩说，是该考虑有选择地把毒品合法化的时候了。赞同将毒品合法化的论点基于这样一个命题：反毒品法——而不是毒品本身——对社会造成的危害最大。他们争论说，如果将毒品合法化，价值数百亿美元的毒品黑市将会消失，毒品交易的帝国将会崩溃，上瘾者将不会再到街头犯罪以满足自己的毒瘾。但是，将毒品合法化将不仅仅能剥夺贩卖毒品的利润，而且警察、法院、监狱将再也不会整日与毒品案件打交道。美国也能缓解它同拉丁美洲和亚洲国家有害的紧张关系，它本来可以同这些重要国家保持友好关系的。
多数赞同合法化的人不认可吸毒，更别说去鼓励吸毒了。相反，他们认为将吸毒看做是犯罪只会使问题变得更糟。他们承认，（毒品合法化之后）美国仍然存在巨大的公共健康问题，但除此之外不会再有巨大的犯罪问题、巨大的腐败问题和巨大的对外政策问题。政府也能征收毒品销售税，并用该收益去资助制止毒品和戒毒的项目。而且，崇尚民权的自由论者还提到另外一个好处：结束侵犯个人基本权利的做法，如吸毒测试，这些做法来源于人们极力想赢得禁毒战的思想。总之，毒品合法化的支持者认为禁毒的战争必败。只要存在对可卡因、海洛因和其他毒品的需求，就会有人来提供它们，不管是通过合法的还是非法的途径。
毒品合法化的反对者把摒弃反毒品法看做是一个可怕而危险的政策，在道德上无异于给目前禁忌的行为以社会认可。如果这种法律符号没有了，更多守法的公民可能就会受到诱惑，尝试吸毒。而且，那些极其有害的物质就会变得更便宜、更纯、更易得，由此上瘾者的数量和医院的费用会剧增，吸毒过量致死、家庭和社会暴力、毁坏财产的案件也将剧增。现在，购买非法毒品的费用和危险至少限制了人们的吸毒量。
如果把可卡因和海洛因合法化，对美国社会会造成什么影响？由于缺乏信息，这还很难说。的确，毒品合法化的想法目前远远超出了公众能接受的程度，所以，几乎没有人肯出资研究它的潜在效应。但是有趣的是这样一个事实：毒品合法化的支持者和反对者都把美国禁酒令的历史看做是为他们各自的观点提供了有力的武器。
