One hit of heroine is extremely unlikely to result in addiction … if it did most mothers in this country would be addicted … myself included, as it is an incredibly common drug to use in childbirth… it is used in operating theatres across the land as is fentanyl and alfentanil that have much more addictive tendencies. These single doses never cause addiction… (ongoing use of them as pain relievers after discharge from hospital definitely does) Very few drugs are addictive after a single dose but what is addictive is the lifestyle that goes with the illegal taking of these drugs. If we are going to solve the drugs issues in this country (which would not be as massive as they are if drugs were even slightly difficult to get hold of) we have to start the conversation based on reality not this narrative that is being told that all drugs are bad and banning them protects people from them. Most drug deaths are caused by drugs being cut with things that aren’t what the person taking them thinks they are taking. Heroine cut with fentanyl is becoming all too common - causing massive ods but more medical problems are caused by them being cut with talc and flour and the such like.
Some must still be using it (not necessarily all in the UK) as it's still readily available for sale
Apparantly, the most common reason for purchase is by gardeners to deter cats...I think it is appalling to acquire fox urine, presumably from farmed foxes. Just vile.
Yes, dead fox from shot foxes is used quite often I think and yes, you are right about a hound's scenting ability.
That was very much part of the compromise that was The Hunting Act; you cannot blame hunters for doing as the law allows and even recognised as appropriate. If you understood the history and context of The Hunting Act you would not be surprised or shocked at this. I know many people in hunting who would totally support the use of a non -animal, natural scent but many others who still feel betrayed by the political process and who want to remain as close to traditional hunting (and within the law - I'm not talking about illegal hunting here) as they can. It was bad law, terrible in fact, to leave so many legal holes but without those holes, allowances, exemptions and compromises, it wouldn't exist at all. The L.P. Was hell bent on getting a Hunting Act in place so, lacking any other option, they took the bad one.
the problem is that other's own real lived experiences very much differ and the rest of us have to cope/manage/put up/accept the damage caused by a few people causing chaos because of what it means to them and it is not an outdated hobby. Not only do we have to put up with it and accept damage but we are rarely told it is going to happen. That makes it even more fun for us.
So part of your argument for banning hunting is relating to the inconvenience that hunting causes others, the intimidation that occurs due to protestors and that if it were banned then this would stop
The CA are absolutely useless. IMO.
Kind of. I think (could be wrong, I was abroad through a lot of this) the BFSS and every other vaguely rural campaign group joined together into one incoherent uncovered mass and named it the Countryside alliance.
but the point is they don't cycle, horse race, let their dogs loose on my property. That is the difference. If someone wants to take their dog for a walk then fine. Plenty of roads and pavements and footpaths. They don't have to let it loose (hounds) to run over my land. That is very important to me as when they did this they damaged fencing and if it had been 2 minutes earlier my dog would have escaped from his secure paddock. He would have followed the hounds. The hounds ran into my neighbours sheep. I was left to repair the damageSo part of your argument for banning hunting is relating to the inconvenience that hunting causes others, the intimidation that occurs due to protestors and that if it were banned then this would stop
So basically no hobbies (I would disagree that it is just a hobby but that is not the point I am making) that inconvenience others and if someone cares enough to protest something we should ban it in case someone else feels intimidated.
That’s football gone, cycling gone, no horse racing, probably no horse riding, no dogs, etc etc
We share the world we have to accept that there are things in the world that might inconvenience us from time to time and just learn to accept it.
Well some of those activities massively inconvenience other people; those whose towns and neighbourhoods are overrun with football supporters at times, with, at times some unpleasant consequences. People who live in places where there are festivals and all manner of events are inconvenienced: yfc rallies, tractor runs, cycling events etc. Not all of those events share considerately and there are wrong'uns at a great many events. Dog walkers let dogs do all manner of unpleasant, inconsiderate, dangerous and cruel things, as can walkers etc.
There will be lines though, in law, about belief based practices. I don't know where exactly those lines are and it will be interesting to see which side of the line this falls on. One can believe anything one likes, it doesn't mean you get to practice it.
It sounds like you have been unlucky as going over land that you don’t have permission to be on is extremely rare in our area, similarly if we are following in vehicles we are careful to not park up where we would block the road, nor drive on mowed verges.
A local farm near us now allows off road vehicles to whizz round one of his fields once a month.