The article was written by Hugo Rifkind, son of the formerly influential Conservative politician Malcolm Rifkind. Little Hugo is a fully paid up honorary member of the political elite so when he speaks what you're really hearing is the political establishment rationalising the reasons for own its own existence.
I know replying to his piece with an ad hominem attack is the lowest form of argument but he was looking for it with the loaded language that he used.
Yeah, he's probably a dick, but still, his point is quite valid.
Possibly not, when you consider the scale of how hypocritical it could be. Not to say the writer is somehow involved in drug dealing, but significant political figures do use their power and status to profit from drug dealing, although it's very rare that they are caught (the power and status must be useful even if they are caught). Simple use of illegal drugs is also not uncommon amongst the political class, I understand the surfaces in the toilet facilities in the European Parliament building in Brussels were once revealed to have significant evidence of cocaine use.
So, at best, Hugo is ignorant of the habits of those who have long inhabited his world, and at worst, he's shilling for them. In the most insidious way, no less.
