Psychoactive Substances Bill

The current government is trying to prevent the circumvention of legislation on controlled substances by invention of new compounds with rather broadly framed legislation against "psychoactive substances". Most of us consume psychoactive substances daily (unless we are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints, aka Mormons): we drink tea or coffee; smokers inhale nicotine; chocoholics are consuming a substance related to caffeine (theobromine). Thus food and drink which "(a) is ordinarily consumed [and] does not contain a prohibited ingredient" is specifically excluded. 

There have been wild claims that this definition still prohibits scents and scented objects including flowers. The simplest answer to this objection is that, contrary to the perceptions of some, the courts are used to interpreting statutes with common sense. The more accurate answer is that the statute if interpreted properly, and read in its entirety, does not state anything of the sort. Clearly Parliament is not intending to ban flowers. Although all sorts of sensory experiences can affect our mood, positively or negatively, they do not do this by direct stimulation or depression of the central nervous system. So as Carl Gardner argues, the "by" in the following definition

For the purposes of this Act a substance produces a psychoactive effect in a
person if, by stimulating or depressing the person’s central nervous system, it affects the person’s mental functioning or emotional state

is crucial in clarifying the effect of the bill. I would suggest adding "directly" before "stimulating or depressing" may assist in clarifying. The government is not suggesting that any stimulating experience should be criminalised, like the dystopian regime in 'Equilibrium', nor will this bill achieve that.