Sara Goff and Drugs

54 comments on “Sara Goff and Drugs ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bill 1

   28 June 2010 at 12:25 pm

   What is Goff’s stance on recreational drugs?

   If he is pro-legalisation or pro-decriminalisation, then there is no story whatsoever.

   Otherwise you get that whole ‘by association’ thing and a perception of hypocrisy etc which is what makes for the mini scandal or whatever you term this kind of soap as news shit.

   Will be interesting to see if he uses the “even my ‘butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth’ daughter!” line as an excuse to assume a swaggering, tough guy front line warrior stand for the supposed good guys as the War on Drugs takes another gloriously drunken stagger down the road to oblivion.
   • swimmer 1.1

     28 June 2010 at 4:53 pm

     Where’s the potential hypocrisy? He’s not the one tripping on drugs. His daughter is a grown woman who is responsible for her own choices.
2. infused 2

   28 June 2010 at 12:31 pm

   Yeah. I have no problem with this. This is a beat up. 4 pills she was consuming herself. Maybe if she was selling it, it would be a different story. E is a wonderful drug 😉
3. deemac 3

   28 June 2010 at 12:41 pm

   S
4. deemac 4

   28 June 2010 at 12:42 pm

   she is 25, not 14 FFS. No longer anyone’s responsibility but her own.
   And 4 Es? wow – hold the front page…
   • swimmer 4.1

     28 June 2010 at 4:56 pm

     Damn right!
5. ieuan 5

   28 June 2010 at 12:49 pm

   How does that graph work? It has solvents as ‘safer’ than just about anything except anabolic steroids.

   Honestly which of the things on the graph would you be happy for your son or daughter to be taking on a regular basis??
   • Pascal's bookie 5.1

     28 June 2010 at 12:55 pm

     “It has solvents as ‘safer’ than just about anything except anabolic steroids”

     I think you are looking at the ‘dependency’?

     I wouldn’t be happy with my son using any of those drugs. Call me a reactionary old fossil if you like but I happen to think 3-and-a-half is just way too young.
     • ieuan 5.1.1

       28 June 2010 at 12:58 pm

       Surely it is a combination of physical harm and dependancy, the further to the top right the worse the ‘substance’. Otherwise why have two axis?
       • Pascal's bookie 5.1.1.1

         28 June 2010 at 1:12 pm

         “Otherwise why have two axis?”

         Because they are different things I guess.

         dependency /= harm

         But if something is high on both, then it’s obviously worse.
     • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2

       28 June 2010 at 1:11 pm

       Gah, reading the graph wrong.
       • Pascal's bookie 5.1.2.1

         28 June 2010 at 1:18 pm

         I suspect that a smaller number of people that use solvents once go on to become habitual users than is the case with cannabis.
   • Lanthanide 5.2

     28 June 2010 at 1:09 pm

     No, physical harm is left to right. Solvents are therefore more harmful than:
     Khat, GHB, Cannabis, Alkyl Nitrites, Ecstasy and LSD, and approximately as harmful as Tobacco. They are less harmful than Alcohol, anabolic steroids, etc.
6. Croc 6

   28 June 2010 at 12:49 pm

   Goff’s response was ridiculous though, stating that he knew “for a fact” that his daughter had never taken illegal drugs before and that he was not being “naive”.

   You don’t go from being drug free for 25 years to attempting to smuggle four Class A pills into a party/festival, even if they are wrongly classified.

   That all being said, who cares, taking drugs doesn’t make you a bad person. And this is muck raking of the worst kind.

   I personally know some of the children of current MP’s who have been up to all kinds of mischief, both legal and illegal but their actions are irrelevant to the politics of their parents. Keep the families out of it, period.
7. Croc 7

   28 June 2010 at 12:53 pm

   Article on the 2007 paper on drug harm ranking in the UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6474053.stm

   Also the BBC Horizon documentary is a very good watch which explains the paper.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/drugs/
8. Inventory2 8

   28 June 2010 at 1:05 pm

   This is a story I made an early decision not to blog on, so you can’t lump ALL the right into one basket. Pollies’ children have enough to deal with without the likes of those of us in the blogosphere (on both sides) looking in on them.
   • lprent 8.1

     28 June 2010 at 2:24 pm

     I did notice.
9. vto 9

   28 June 2010 at 1:08 pm

   Reading about the tragic drug trafficking situation in Mexico where thousands have been killed and the police and military have lost control makes for sobering reading. The Mexican Pres. sheeted home the responsibility to the addiction of the USA to drugs – which is quite right.

   It occurred to me that Mexico should give up fighting the drugs trade, which benefits the USA users and costs Mexicans their lives, by decriminlasing drugs in Mexico. That way it would lump the problem back to its rightful owner – the USA.
   • The Voice of Reason 9.1

     28 June 2010 at 1:48 pm

     Crikey, change ‘drugs’ for ‘oil’ and Mexico for BP and it’s the same scenario. An overwhelming and hugely profitable demand from the north leading to misery in the south.
     • SHG 9.1.1

       28 June 2010 at 1:50 pm

       Yes, it’s exactly the same. That’s why BP should give up fighting the oil trade.

       What, what?

       [lprent: The return. BTW: I noticed your history rewrite of the reason you got banned last week at the DimPost. ]
10. husker 10

    28 June 2010 at 1:33 pm

    bill hicks is a prophet, sage, seer and comic. he should be taught in schools (apart from some of the clam lapping stuff)
11. MikeE 11

    28 June 2010 at 1:52 pm

    While I agree with the post, Goff (and the Labour Party) has voted
    – against the med pot bill
    – for banning BZP etc

    Considering he has voted to send people to jail due for recreational drug use, it makes him look like a hypocrite, especially with all the excuses he has made for her (suggesting in a statement she did not intend to consume them – so was she dealing?). Providing the pills are actually E, they are pretty safe, the real dangers are due to prohibition – which as far as I know, Goff is a supporter of.

    Personally, I don’t think he daughter has done anything wrong, people should be free to consume whatever substance they like providing they don’t harm others. And I’m one of them crazy “right wingers”.. (though Jacqui Dean did call me a left winger on the radio when we got her to try and ban Water).

    Agreed that this is muck raking and typical of Marshall’s journalism, I do find it kind of ironic that he is reporting on people’s drug use considering his history in the clubbing scene…
    • ianmac 11.1

      28 June 2010 at 2:09 pm

      Yes – leave the MP’s kids/families out of this.
      And it would be a dangerous move for any politician to make capital from this as people who throw stones are bound to reap what they sow, and throw the babies out and down the plughole.
      • swimmer 11.1.1

        28 June 2010 at 5:01 pm

        Yes Ianmac the adult children of pollies make their own choices and it has nothing to do with Goff’s ability to do this job.
    • Pascal's bookie 11.2

      28 June 2010 at 2:28 pm

      How is he a hypocrite exactly? Did did he say the law shouldn’t apply to her or what?
      • MikeE 11.2.1

        28 June 2010 at 4:20 pm

        “Goff lodged an appeal, understood to be on the grounds that a conviction would limit her ability to travel internationally. New South Wales District Court judge Ronald Solomon reviewed the case and found “she had committed the offence but dismissed it without recording a conviction,” said the court official.”

        Considering he voted (along with the rest of Labour) to send people to Jail for possession of BZP, and voted against the Med Pot bill, I’d consider it hypocritical – unless I misread the article, and it was the daughter who lodged the appeal.

        That said, I don’t think that drug use should be the publics business, and it is pure gutter journalism. Though the only reason this because a story was Goff (seniors) hamfisted response when questioned by journalists.

        Just another sad example of the failure of the war on Drugs. The poor girl did nothing wrong, she harmed no one etc.
        • Bright Red 11.2.1.1

          28 June 2010 at 4:32 pm

          I would assume the Goff in the quote is Sara Goff. Phil wouldn’t have standing to lodge an appeal.

          captcha: young
          • Pascal's bookie 11.2.1.1.1

            28 June 2010 at 7:48 pm

            Yeah, I’d say that’s a pretty obvious misreading of the article. And what makes you (MikeE) think they would not have run it if Phil Goff had reacted in a way you approve of?
            • MikeE 11.2.1.1.1.1

              29 June 2010 at 10:14 am

              I’m sure they would have run it, hence calling it gutter journalism.
              • Pascal's bookie …

                29 June 2010 at 10:19 am

                “Though the only reason this because a story was Goff (seniors) hamfisted response when questioned by journalists”

                I obviously don’t understand that then. No worries.
12. f_t 12

    28 June 2010 at 2:06 pm

    Drugs helped Paul Homes get his career back on track. Here’s hoping.
13. pollywog 13

    28 June 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Zero tolerance…she knew the risks and the possible media blowback if she got caught just for being Phil’s daughter.

    So no sympathy from me. I wouldn’t make allowances if it were weed, heroin, cocaine or whatever nor if she were my daughter so i’m not gonna make it for ecstasy and Phil’s daughter.

    Shame on her for bringing the family name into disrepute.
    • Ari 13.1

      28 June 2010 at 3:03 pm

      I don’t care whose daughter she is, Sara Goff doesn’t have a drugs policy, she is a private citizen, and I see no reason why the public has a right to judge squat about her. Frankly, what she did isn’t the slightest bit immoral and I don’t see what rational reason it has to be illegal.

      The only disrepute here is people who can’t back out of the private life of someone who has nothing at all to do with politics. Any ‘disrepute’ to her or her family ought to be a private matter, as there isn’t any policy angle to be had here.
14. vto 14

    28 June 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Is our generation living with the most ‘victorian’ of rules around mind-alterating substances ever?

    Does anyone know if / when the rules were tougher than they are today?

    (which is actually the case with so many things today – we are far more victorian than we think imo)
    • lprent 14.1

      28 June 2010 at 4:04 pm

      The Victorians had very very few limits on various drugs. You should have a look at original editions of Mrs Beatsons cookbook some time….
      • MikeE 14.1.1

        28 June 2010 at 4:23 pm

        Yeah, Victorians loved their drugs. Often you could purchase whatever you liked at the local corner store.
        • Lanthanide 14.1.1.1

          28 June 2010 at 6:14 pm

          Coca Cola was originally made with cocaine, after all.

          There are still old-timey children’s second-hand chemistry sets floating around from the 20’s and 30’s that have “cocain hydrochloride” in them, although I suspect a lot of them got used up in the 60s to 80s.
          • Quoth the Raven 14.1.1.1.1

            28 June 2010 at 6:20 pm

            and 7 UP had lithium in it.
            Here’s some pictures of other products.
            • Rich 14.1.1.1.1.1

              28 June 2010 at 7:07 pm

              For real!

              Actually, mass-medicating the population with Li might not be a bad idea, given the incidence of undiagnosed bipolar disorder. But given the narrow therapeutic range, I wonder how many early 7-Up drinkers pegged it.

              Putting MDMA in alcopops, on the other hand, would be an altogether safer and better scheme.
15. Tiger Mountain 15

    28 June 2010 at 3:25 pm

    The Victorians did a nice line in hypocrisy, but at least you could still get some interesting substances at the local “chemist’, opiates in several forms being rather popular.

    This unwarranted attention on a politicians daughter is the daftest drug beat up since Nandor’s “drunk in charge of a country’ jibe when he was a young MP, though I guess in a way he was correct.
16. Nick C 16

    28 June 2010 at 3:49 pm

    Can anyone imagine the same sort of defense by any author on this blog had Key’s daughter been caught with drugs?

    [lprent: Put up evidence, apologize, or face an indeterminate ban.
    There have been several suggestions along this line. I’ve decided to view it as an attack on the site. ]
    • Craig Glen Eden 16.1

      28 June 2010 at 4:01 pm

      I think most of the authors are pretty united that Pollies families are off limits and so they should be they shouldn’t feature in woman’s mag’s either in my view it just make s others think they have a right to talk about them.

      I suppose it might be different if the polly supplied the drug but cant think why else the family of a polly should be dragged through the media.
    • Bright Red 16.2

      28 June 2010 at 4:33 pm

      I would imagine the response would be the same. note Farrar’s post on this topic.

      and this post isn’t really about Sara Goff, that’s just the launching pad for the discussion of prohibition,
    • mickysavage 16.3

      28 June 2010 at 9:15 pm

      Good attempted diversion Nick C.

      The suggestion is that left and right both go for a feeding frenzy whenever children of the other side’s politicians are in trouble.

      Can I express this response as succinctly and directly as possible.

      Utter piffle.

      Fuck you and your sort for thinking that the left is as obnoxious and calculating as the right so that we would think of using a young person’s difficulties for political gain.
    • Alexandra 16.4

      29 June 2010 at 1:44 pm

      “Can anyone imagine the same sort of defense by any author on this blog had Key’s daughter been caught with drugs? ”

      Yes, I can imagine the same sort of defense by most here for anyones daughter caught with drugs.
      • lprent 16.4.1

        29 June 2010 at 3:07 pm

        I would expect that we’d get that type of defense for any family member where it was not related to the politics. As far as I’m concerned we can leave that type of rubbish bin surfing sleaze to the likes of Whale or Wishart, or the more genteel (but just as viscous) dog-whistling of some of the other right wing sites.

        I’d be quite unhappy if we didn’t defend the right to privacy of politicians families. The few occasions when information like that has leaked out of the comments sections here (for instance Double Diptons address and kids schools) we’ve stomped on it hard.

        Actually I think I should start stomping on Nick C and other such arseholes for suggesting that we are like the sleazes of the right – without any evidence.
17. roger nome 17

    28 June 2010 at 3:57 pm

    VTO – Laudanum (basically opium and alcahol) was freely available in Victorian times, and was used to treat colds and flues in infants.

    We do hypocrisy better than the Victorians. i.e. many more people die every year due legalised substances and behaviour (obesity, alcahol and tabbaco) than die due to use of illegal drugs, yet most kiwis are against the de-criminalisation of pot, which most people have tried and is fairly harmless when used by adults in moderation.

    IMO – all mildly harmful substances should legally be allowed to be used by adults (people 18 and over), and perhaps class A drugs should only be legally available for use by people 25 and over (i.e. the brain isn’t fully developed until around this time).

    But then that would be applying rationaility to our approach to drug use…. Something that’s frowned upon in NZ i believe 🙂
    • Bright Red 17.1

      28 June 2010 at 4:48 pm

      And the Victorians’ ancestors might not have been into opium but they were pissed all the time. The Victorians got safe drinking water by boiling it and flavouring the result with tea leaves. Before that was introduced from Asia, the only way to make water in a major city safe to drink was to ferment something in it with the alcohol killing the bugs, so everyone was drinking beer all the time.
      • swimmer 17.1.1

        28 June 2010 at 7:20 pm

        Wow!
18. politically_incorrect 18

    28 June 2010 at 8:20 pm

    Sara broke the law and she has to face the consequences of that, but she should only be treated like any other person who took ecstasy to a party. It’s not fair that she should be dragged through the media and have to feel guilty for potentially damaging her father’s campaign. Families should be left out of politics, especially politician’s children. A lot of people have been saying that she did something illegal and they would make their kids face the consequences, it isn’t acceptable etc. Fine face the consequences of the law, but it’s easy to say that when their own kids wouldn’t be a top story on the news or something, and they wouldn’t be seen as Phil Goff’s druggie daughter wherever they went.
19. felix 19

    28 June 2010 at 8:53 pm

    Didn’t know Es were illegal. Can’t imagine why they would be either.

    edit: Just figured it out – it’s ‘cos of the music.
20. sean14 20

    28 June 2010 at 10:06 pm

    This is undoubtedly going to be used by the wing-nut mob as an excuse to destroy Goff’s reputation.

    Speaking as a member of the wing-nut mob as you so kindly call us Guest, I couldn’t give a flying fuck about what Sara Goff wants to do on her own time.

    For once I agree with Helen Clark. Nothing to see here, time to move on.
21. RedFred 21

    28 June 2010 at 10:48 pm

    IF E replaced alcohol consumption for one Friday night in NZ the police would not know what to do with themselves…violent alcohol related crime would disappear.

    The drug issue in NZ is due to prohibition, in the UK where access to better quality drugs is possible P doesn’t get a look in. You would be surprised what fuels a friday night in somewhere like London for all manner of people

    Simon Power, Judith Collins, Anne Tolley, Bill English et al could certainly do with double dropping and letting loose; although that is a group hug I’d rather steer clear of.
22. joe bloggs 22

    29 June 2010 at 9:46 am

    There’s plenty of skirting around a more significant issue underlying this story – the way that Phil Goff handled the reporters questions was transparently inadequate.

    When presented with prima facie evidence that his daughter is a drug user he denied all:

    I can tell you some­thing, that my daugh­ter has never taken drugs, never taken drugs….I’m not being naive as a father, I know she has not taken drugs apart from the legal drug of alco­hol.

    FFS Phil, your daughter admitted they were for her own use. You may not be naive as a father, but even you have to admit that statement of yours was an epic fail. Who on earth is giving you advice on PR? They should be sacked immediately.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS