point about usall being alcoholics. I think that means the bell curve of behaviour has shifted, and that what was once extreme is now the norm. What to make of that is beyond me, but personally, I can't blame us. One of the things I've leaned in the course of my long and undistinguished participation in CiF is that sarcasm's barb is always more effective if it comes equipped with, as it were, a coherent point . Anyhow - this is about the 17th article on CiF in the course of the last week that's made more or less the same point. It's also the best of the lot -not least for seemingly recognising: 1) that legalisation and regulation should not be read as meaning 'hand the lot over to legitimate business', and 2) that drugs are all different, even if they've been given the same legal status and social role (focusing and exploiting inchoate social fears, defining society's legitimate scapegoats and criminalising them....). Since the inevitable result is to raise the price of a serious drug habit beyond what many can afford, penalising use drives otherwise law-abiding people into the criminal economy. Rubbish. The ban on slaves didn't create a criminal economy. Nor does the ban on child pornography. People commit crimes because they are criminals. They do not do so because of the drugs. Criminals who break some laws are likely to break others, such as the ban on drugs. But they were criminals to begin with. Again,