Well, I'm basically in agreement w/ MMario & 'Spaw. My thoughts on the DUI are: 1) he owned up to it - "That's a true story. I'm not proud of it, but it's true"; and 2) the only difference between he and I, and more other folks than I can count, is that we were lucky and didn't get stopped.

I think most people who did or do drink have been behind the wheel when they shouldn't have been. Most of us learn as we get older(or if we're lucky enough to get older). So, a great many people are in no position to throw stones. I'm not real fond of self-righteous hypocrits under any circumstances.

As to controlled substances, there is great hypocrisy there as well. I don't know it to be true, but I would not be surprised if the people who have never smoked pot are in a minority in the US. Pot has been an article of commerce for at least 10,000 years, and it hasn't yet brought down civilization. Even George Washington cultivated it; some for fiber and some for "other uses." How else could he smile with wooden false teeth?

I have no idea what proportion of the population uses, or has used, other controlled substances, but i suspect it is substantial. I have a range of sentiments about those other drugs. Coke has been around in various forms for a long, long time. I think I would be tolerant about most forms, but I am absolutely positive I would do my best to personaly assassinate anyone who pushed crack to someone I loved. Did you know that sugar was considered an addictive drug and was a controlled substance 100 years or so ago? If public health is the real reason for regulation, I think there are many good reasons sugar should be on the list again. Sadly, public health is rarely the real reason.

I believe most listings are based on economic motivation. Regulated markets are more profitable for the manufacturers and the gate-keepers. That's true in many areas, but probably nowhere more so than in pharmaceuticals, alcohol and tobacco.

Apologies for the rant. I need my caffeine "fix".