Joanna Dennehy

I would be very surprised if these murders and attempted murders were not drug induced. I think that all drug addicts should be given free drugs, They should be given the drugs and made to stay in a secure hospice while they get through the drug induced state and then calm back down. It would reduce crime dramatically. This thought is not my IP, but is one I really agree with. Your thoughts?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25669206

For those who might not know about the case.

I'm surprised that, as far as I'm aware, there was no publicity at the time of the murders - sadly I suppose they are just mundane every day events.

Wow I'm in the US so I hadn't heard of her before or much on women jokers although the movie Monster is about a woman killing men I believe who liked prostitutes.... I might be wrong on that as its been awhile since I saw it. This case is absolutely senseless if you ask me

I live about 12 miles from where she dumped the bodies. Gives me the creeps.

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I live about 12 miles from where she dumped the bodies.  Gives me the creeps.

She looks evil,was it drugs that made her do the murders or was it something else ? either way in the photos she looks to be celebrating and acknowledging what she has done like a trophy photo.

@whmon wrote:I would be very surprised if these murders and attempted murders were not drug induced. I think that all drug addicts should be given free drugs, They should be given the drugs and made to stay in a secure hospice while they get through the drug induced state and then calm back down. It would reduce crime dramatically. This thought is not my IP, but is one I really agree with. Your thoughts?

Hospices are hospitals that care for terminally ill patients at the end of their lives so I'm assuming you meant secure hospital. As to your general point, I think you need to do a lot more research into the effects that various drugs have on people. Very few, if any, are capable of directly inducing murder or putting people into a state where they need hospitalising to "calm down". You might also like to consider that tobacco is one of the most harmful and addictive drugs that there is. Virtually all smokers are addicted to tobacco smoke and are therefore drug addicts. Do we lock all smokers up and give them free cigarettes?

@AndyB wrote:

@whmon wrote:I would be very surprised if these murders and attempted murders were not drug induced. I think that all drug addicts should be given free drugs, They should be given the drugs and made to stay in a secure hospice while they get through the drug induced state and then calm back down. It would reduce crime dramatically. This thought is not my IP, but is one I really agree with. Your thoughts?

Hospices are hospitals that care for terminally ill patients at the end of their lives so I'm assuming you meant secure hospital. As to your general point, I think you need to do a lot more research into the effects that various drugs have on people. Very few, if any, are capable of directly inducing murder or putting people into a state where they need hospitalising to "calm down". You might also like to consider that tobacco is one of the most harmful and addictive drugs that there is. Virtually all smokers are addicted to tobacco smoke and are therefore drug addicts. Do we lock all smokers up and give them free cigarettes?

I think drug induced murders are probably quite rare (hopefully) but I do think that free drugs for those who would otherwise commit crimes to obtain them would cut crime overnight, they wouldn't need to steal in order to pay for them. These people are going to take drugs anyway so it would be better for everyone if they were locked away for the duration so that they couldn't either harm themselves or others. As for cigarettes, while I have heard people say that they could kill for a cigarette I believe it was just a figure of speech.

@whmon wrote:These people are going to take drugs anyway so it would be better for everyone if they were locked away for the duration so that they couldn't either harm themselves or others.

Again there's an assumption that drugs automatically cause people to become a danger to either themselves or others. Alcohol is a drug. Should we lock you up every time you have a glass of wine/beer?

@AndyB wrote:

@whmon wrote:These people are going to take drugs anyway so it would be better for everyone if they were locked away for the duration so that they couldn't either harm themselves or others.

Again there's an assumption that drugs automatically cause people to become a danger to either themselves or others. Alcohol is a drug. Should we lock you up every time you have a glass of wine/beer?

But because alcohol is legal it is not extortionately priced. While I agree that there are some people who commit crime in order to get the funds to buy alcohol I would imagine that this number is far lower than the number of people who steal etc. in order to get the money to fund their drug habit.

20 years ago a friend of mine was terminally ill, her son had a £200 per day habit and no income. He stole all of her jewellery and antiques to buy heroin (he actually died before she did.) If he had broken into my house to steal my meagre antiques I would have much preferred it had he previously been given free drugs and a secure place to stay. It would just make everybody safer.

@whmon wrote:

@AndyB wrote:

@whmon wrote:These people are going to take drugs anyway so it would be better for everyone if they were locked away for the duration so that they couldn't either harm themselves or others.

Again there's an assumption that drugs automatically cause people to become a danger to either themselves or others. Alcohol is a drug. Should we lock you up every time you have a glass of wine/beer?

But because alcohol is legal it is not extortionately priced. While I agree that there are some people who commit crime in order to get the funds to buy alcohol I would imagine that this number is far lower than the number of people who steal etc. in order to get the money to fund their drug habit.

20 years ago a friend of mine was terminally ill, her son had a £200 per day habit and no income. He stole all of her jewellery and antiques to buy heroin (he actually died before she did.) If he had broken into my house to steal my meagre antiques I would have much preferred it had he previously been given free drugs and a secure place to stay. It would just make everybody safer.

I've got no problem with the legalisation of recreational drugs, although I think they should be sold and taxed in the same way as the legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are rather than given away free. What I do have a problem with is ignorance as to their effects and the almost hysterical demand that people who take drugs should be locked up while the drug is active. It's this ignorance that scares politicians away from changing policy to one that will cause less harm than the current prohibition.

I notice you've ignored my question about locking you up when you have a drink and seem to believe that alcohol isn't a drug - it is. The only differences between alcohol and other recreational drugs is that alcohol is legal, more harmful than most and can cause people to become aggressive when its active in their system, whereas the vast majority of drugs have the opposite effect.

@AndyB wrote:

@whmon wrote:

@AndyB wrote:

@whmon wrote:These people are going to take drugs anyway so it would be better for everyone if they were locked away for the duration so that they couldn't either harm themselves or others.

Again there's an assumption that drugs automatically cause people to become a danger to either themselves or others. Alcohol is a drug. Should we lock you up every time you have a glass of wine/beer?

But because alcohol is legal it is not extortionately priced. While I agree that there are some people who commit crime in order to get the funds to buy alcohol I would imagine that this number is far lower than the number of people who steal etc. in order to get the money to fund their drug habit.

20 years ago a friend of mine was terminally ill, her son had a £200 per day habit and no income. He stole all of her jewellery and antiques to buy heroin (he actually died before she did.) If he had broken into my house to steal my meagre antiques I would have much preferred it had he previously been given free drugs and a secure place to stay. It would just make everybody safer.

I've got no problem with the legalisation of recreational drugs, although I think they should be sold and taxed in the same way as the legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) are rather than given away free. What I do have a problem with is ignorance as to their effects and the almost hysterical demand that people who take drugs should be locked up while the drug is active. It's this ignorance that scares politicians away from changing policy to one that will cause less harm than the current prohibition.

I notice you've ignored my question about locking you up when you have a drink and seem to believe that alcohol isn't a drug - it is. The only differences between alcohol and other recreational drugs is that alcohol is legal, more harmful than most and can cause people to become aggressive when its active in their system, whereas the vast majority of drugs have the opposite effect.

I wasn't really ignoring your question about locking me up when I have a drink, I just thought it was rather a weak argument. You had already mentioned locking people up when they wanted to smoke before mentioning locking people up when they wanted a glass of wine of beer and I was just waiting for you to suggest locking people up when they wanted a cup of coffee. People who have a few glasses of wine or smoke a few cigarettes don't tend to cause misery trying to get the money to pay for it.

I'm talking less about locking people up who are taking drugs, and more about stopping them from stealing from people, assaulting people and murdering people just to get the money to buy drugs. Putting them in a secure environment while they take them would simply be a way of keeping other people (and themselves) safe. I really don't care if people take drugs or not - as long as it doesn't affect other people.

@whmon wrote:I'm talking less about locking people up who are taking drugs, and more about stopping them from stealing from people, assaulting people and murdering people just to get the money to buy drugs. Putting them in a secure environment while they take them would simply be a way of keeping other people (and themselves) safe. I really don't care if people take drugs or not - as long as it doesn't affect other people.

But you are talking about locking them up. You said this: "These people are going to take drugs anyway so it would be better for everyone if they were locked away for the duration so that they couldn't either harm themselves or others"

And in the quote above you again talk about "keeping other people (and themselves) safe". What drug(s) are you talking about and what is the effect that it has that requires a "secure environment"? Why does this not apply to one of the few drugs known to invoke violence and aggression; alcohol?

@AndyB wrote:

@whmon wrote:I'm talking less about locking people up who are taking drugs, and more about stopping them from stealing from people, assaulting people and murdering people just to get the money to buy drugs. Putting them in a secure environment while they take them would simply be a way of keeping other people (and themselves) safe. I really don't care if people take drugs or not - as long as it doesn't affect other people.

But you are talking about locking them up. You said this: "These people are going to take drugs anyway so it would be better for everyone if they were locked away for the duration so that they couldn't either harm themselves or others"

And in the quote above you again talk about "keeping other people (and themselves) safe". What drug(s) are you talking about and what is the effect that it has that requires a "secure environment"? Why does this not apply to one of the few drugs known to invoke violence and aggression; alcohol?

The problems with alcohol and drugs are different. Alcohol can be taken in moderation without becoming addictive. Drugs can't. Also, the problems associated with the abuse of alcohol come into effect AFTER the act - when these individuals can expect to be locked up anyway. The problems associated with drugs come into effect BEFORE the act as individuals break into houses to steal cherished possessions, mug others, assault others, steal from family and friends and even murder people all to get the money they need for their next fix. If they were given free drugs they would not need to do this and everyone else would be safe. They would have to be in a secure environment to take their free drugs and that stands to reason.

We are coming at this from two different angles Andy, you are looking at the perspective of the individual drug user and wanting drugs to be legalised while I am looking at the crime levels associated with addiction. As I said earlier - I'm not interested in whether or not people should be able to take drugs, I'm only interested in the way they get them and what they are prepared to do to get them. I have no feelings either way about an individual taking drugs other than how it affects others.

@whmon wrote:The problems with alcohol and drugs are different. Alcohol can be taken in moderation without becoming addictive. Drugs can't.

Wrong. They can and they are used without the user becoming addicted in the the vast majority of cases

@whmon wrote:Also, the problems associated with the abuse of alcohol come into effect AFTER the act - when these individuals can expect to be locked up anyway. The problems associated with drugs come into effect BEFORE the act as individuals break into houses to steal cherished possessions, mug others, assault others, steal from family and friends and even murder people all to get the money they need for their next fix.

Wrong again. Alcoholics, drug addicts who's drug of choice is alcohol, have been known to do all of those things to get their next fix of alcohol, as well as become violent when under the influence

@whmon wrote:If they were given free drugs they would not need to do this and everyone else would be safe. They would have to be in a secure environment to take their free drugs and that stands to reason.

It doesn't stand to any sort of reason whatsoever. If, as you say, the problems associated with illegal drugs happen before the drug is consumed, why does the user need to be in a secure environment to take the drug? I repeat the questions from my last post which you have ignored, because they go to the heart of your ignorance about drugs, their effects and addiction:  "What drug(s) are you talking about and what is the effect that it has that requires a "secure environment"? Why does this not apply to one of the few drugs known to invoke violence and aggression; alcohol?"

@whmon wrote:We are coming at this from two different angles Andy, you are looking at the perspective of the individual drug user and wanting drugs to be legalised while I am looking at the crime levels associated with addiction. As I said earlier - I'm not interested in whether or not people should be able to take drugs, I'm only interested in the way they get them and what they are prepared to do to get them. I have no feelings either way about an individual taking drugs other than how it affects others.

We aren't coming at this from different angles at all, except perhaps that you have a distorted, over-simplistic view of addiction and are seemingly unaware that hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people take illegal drugs every week, some of them regularly, without any problems whatsoever. The problems that you've identified are not caused because people take drugs that happen to be illegal. They are caused by people who have an addictive/destructive personality and who are unable to control themselves. It could just as easily be gambling, the addiction to which causes all the same problems you blame on illegal drugs.

@AndyB wrote:

@whmon wrote:The problems with alcohol and drugs are different. Alcohol can be taken in moderation without becoming addictive. Drugs can't.

Wrong. They can and they are used without the user becoming addicted in the the vast majority of cases

@whmon wrote:Also, the problems associated with the abuse of alcohol come into effect AFTER the act - when these individuals can expect to be locked up anyway. The problems associated with drugs come into effect BEFORE the act as individuals break into houses to steal cherished possessions, mug others, assault others, steal from family and friends and even murder people all to get the money they need for their next fix.

Wrong again. Alcoholics, drug addicts who's drug of choice is alcohol, have been known to do all of those things to get their next fix of alcohol, as well as become violent when under the influence

@whmon wrote:If they were given free drugs they would not need to do this and everyone else would be safe. They would have to be in a secure environment to take their free drugs and that stands to reason.

It doesn't stand to any sort of reason whatsoever. If, as you say, the problems associated with illegal drugs happen before the drug is consumed, why does the user need to be in a secure environment to take the drug? I repeat the questions from my last post which you have ignored, because they go to the heart of your ignorance about drugs, their effects and addiction:  "What drug(s) are you talking about and what is the effect that it has that requires a "secure environment"? Why does this not apply to one of the few drugs known to invoke violence and aggression; alcohol?"

@whmon wrote:We are coming at this from two different angles Andy, you are looking at the perspective of the individual drug user and wanting drugs to be legalised while I am looking at the crime levels associated with addiction. As I said earlier - I'm not interested in whether or not people should be able to take drugs, I'm only interested in the way they get them and what they are prepared to do to get them. I have no feelings either way about an individual taking drugs other than how it affects others.

We aren't coming at this from different angles at all, except perhaps that you have a distorted, over-simplistic view of addiction and are seemingly unaware that hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people take illegal drugs every week, some of them regularly, without any problems whatsoever. The problems that you've identified are not caused because people take drugs that happen to be illegal. They are caused by people who have an addictive/destructive personality and who are unable to control themselves. It could just as easily be gambling, the addiction to which causes all the same problems you blame on illegal drugs.

Do you happen to have taken them just recently Andy? Only no matter what I say about crime, and that drug addicts commit crime in order to buy their drugs - you can't seem to comprehend. Shall we discuss this when you have come down from your high.

May I remind you of the forum rules:


1. NO DISRUPTION ALLOWED - i.e. trying to derail threads

2. NEVER ATTACK ANOTHER MEMBER - that includes calling people trolls etc. Any worries contact admin or mods.

3. NO LIBELLOUS POSTS

Do they have methadone clinics in the UK? I wasn't sure but they save lives and political get their meds and go on to live productive healthier lives.