Sara Goff and Drugs

Written By: - Date published: 12:04 pm, June 28th, 2010 - 54 comments
Categories: drugs - Tags:

Phil Goff’s daughter, Sara Goff has been outed, apparently she arrived at a party in Australia with 4 Ecstasy tablets hidden in her bra. This is undoubtedly going to be used by the wing-nut mob as an excuse to destroy Goff’s reputation. I mean, if he can’t bring up his daughter right, then he can’t govern a country properly can he, right? Wrong.

There is an aversion to all recreational drugs in Western society, with the exception of the old favourite alcohol. Perhaps this lies in the Puritan past, or maybe it’s just an excuse for people with a bone to pick to sideline people for their otherwise irrelevant choices. The fact is, without the ingrained societal values against chemicals like Ecstasy, very little harm is caused by it. Should Goff and his daughter have to face flak for Sara Goff wanting to have a good night out?

Recently British scientist David Nutt was sacked by the government (New Labour, not the current LibDem/Tory monster) for proclaiming that Ecstasy with the exception of added binders and fillers which sometimes can be toxic, or the presentation of methamphetamine as E, is safer than horse riding, and definitely safer than alcohol.

All research, aside from scare mongering rubbish put out by government departments, shows that Nutt was right, Ecstasy is a relatively safe drug. All we hear in the media is horror stories, people that have died from overhydration or combining it with alcohol. This is just another example of the MSM showing a huge bias.

I’ll leave you with this show from Bill Hicks, talking about lies, scare tactics, superstitions and the MSM.

J Andels

54 comments on “Sara Goff and Drugs”

  1. Bill 1

    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

      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

    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 4

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

  4. ieuan 5

    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

      “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

        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

          “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

        Gah, reading the graph wrong.

        • Pascal's bookie 5.1.2.1

          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

      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.

  5. Croc 6

    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.

  6. Croc 7

    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/

  7. 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.

  8. vto 9

    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

      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

        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. ]

  9. husker 10

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

  10. MikeE 11

    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

      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

        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

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

      • MikeE 11.2.1

        “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

          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

            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

              I’m sure they would have run it, hence calling it gutter journalism.

              • Pascal's bookie

                “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.

  11. f_t 12

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

  12. 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

      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.

  13. vto 14

    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

      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

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

        • Lanthanide 14.1.1.1

          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.

  14. Tiger Mountain 15

    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.

  15. Nick C 16

    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

      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

      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,

    • 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

      “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

        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.

  16. roger nome 17

    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

      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.

  17. politically_incorrect 18

    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.

  18. felix 19

    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.

  19. sean14 20

    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.

  20. RedFred 21

    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.

  21. joe bloggs 22

    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.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New Zealand bans military style semi-automatics and assault rifles
    Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles banned under stronger gun laws Immediate action to prevent stock-piling Military style semi-automatics and assault rifles will be banned in New Zealand under stronger new gun laws announced today, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says. ...
    2 days ago
  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    2 weeks ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    3 weeks ago