It wasn't that quick at all. This is an acceptable logic:
- Druh says that there are drunken parties naming nobody in particular.
- Chu takes vocal offense suggesting that she insinuated him saying:
- a) that he, personally, doesn't drink, and
- b) that councilors should be tested for drugs.
Is it not a legitimate assumption that he, in turn, is insinuating Druh (or at least one of Druh's coalition members, which are not that many)?