OK, CC, what you are saying makes sense (don't let that go to your head!). If you do go with the angle that RedK is not a drug, per se, but rather something that strips away the moral layers of Clark Kent to reveal the raw Kal beneath, then yes, your argument does hold water. He did know what he was doing and is therefore accountable.
However, I think what you are saying amounts to semantics of a sort. Those "layers" you speak of I term Clark's inhibitions as defined in dictionary.com:
(1) : a desirable restraint or check upon the free or spontaneous instincts or impulses of an individual guided or directed by the social and cultural forces of the environment <the self-control so developed is called inhibition —C. W. Russell>
We all have basic, selfish wants, needs and desires that we know we cannot act upon since we live in a civilized world. Clark has these same impulses (his Kal personality) that he knows is not acceptable to society or even just his parents, so he employs those "layers of Clark Kent" to restrain Kal.
By tricking Clark into wearing that Red-K necklace, Alicia effectively removed his inhibitions. He was no longer acting with a full range of controls, and therefore the things that he did were not of his real, conscious choosing.
I do love your spectrum analogy of "Clark" being the personality on the fully-human end of the spectrum with "Kal-El" on the fully-Kryptonian end and "Kal" residing somewhere in between.
Too, I agree about the Red-K. Enough of it already!!Except Red-K Clark is one sexy big hunk of gorgeousness.
Lynn
PS - About the marriage being not-legal, I'm pretty sure it's because people under the age of 18 have to have parental consent. I'm guessing Clark and/or Alicia are both 17.
