£140,000?

How on earth does she do it? She writes two basic articles these days (inequality kills! Let the State take care of everything for you; and Tony's rubbish, I want Gordon) and the standard of argument is atrocious.

The confusion about cannabis means that class A drugs stay banned, despite the calamity that prohibition causes, from Afghanistan to Manchester.

What does this mean? The confusion about cannabis has nothing to do with the ilegality of Class A drugs. I'm prepared to accept that there is a very good libertarian argument for the legalisation of drgs, but is that what she's saying? Surely she means that the confusion over cannabis is because Class A drugs are prohibited? That's not very insightful, but at least it makes sense.