2. 外语
  3. Do we need laws that prevent us from running risks with our lives? If so, then perhaps laws are needed prohibiting the sale of c

Do we need laws that prevent us from running risks with our lives? If so, then perhaps laws are needed prohibiting the sale of c

admin2015-09-25  28
问题     Do we need laws that prevent us from running risks with our lives? If so, then perhaps laws are needed prohibiting the sale of cigarettes and alcoholic drinks. Both products have been known to kill people. The hazards of drinking too much alcohol are as bad or worse than the hazards of smoking too many cigarettes. All right then, let’s pass a law closing the liquor stores and the bars in this country. Let’s put an end once and for all to the ruinous disease from which as many as 10 million Americans currently suffer — alcoholism.
    But wait. We’ve already tried that. For 13 years, between 1920 and 1933, there were no liquor stores anywhere in the United States. They were shut down abolished by an amendment to the Constitution and by a law of Congress. After January 20, 1920, there was supposed to be no more manufacturing, selling, or transporting of "intoxicating liquors". Without any more liquor, people could not drink it. And if they did not drink it, how could they get drunk? There would be no more dangers to the public welfare from drunkenness and alcoholism. It was all very logical. And yet prohibition of liquor, beer, and wine did not work. Why?
    Because, law or no law, millions of people still liked to drink alcohol. And they were willing to take risks to get it. They were not about to change their tastes and habits just because of a change in the law. And gangs of liquor smugglers millions of gallons of the outlawed beverages across the Canadian and Mexican borders. Drinkers were likely to know of an illegal bar that served Mexican or Canadian liquor. Crime and drunkenness were both supposed to decline as a result of prohibition. Instead, people drank more alcohol than ever — often poisoned alcohol.
    On December 5, 1933, they removed Prohibition by approving the 21st Amendment to the Constitution.
Which of the following was NOT a characteristic reason for the proposal of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and the Volstead Act?
选项 A、There would be no further danger to the public from alcoholism.
B、There would be a rise in the cost of alcoholic beverages.
C、Without liquor, people would not drink.
D、People would not become drunk of create a public nuisance.
答案B
解析 事实细节题。信息定位在第二段。段中第六句提及没有酒，民众就不会喝醉，并且由于酗酒和酒精中毒引起的对公共福利的危害就会减少。选项A中“no further danger to the public”，选项C和选项D中“not become drunk of create a public nuisance”提及的不会因为醉酒而做出妨碍公众利益的事，均与文章信息一致。选项B中信息在文中未提及。故答案为B。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/I0JYFFFM
0

考博英语

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)