Comment by AlecSchueler

> The Psychoactive Substances Act has an explicit exemption stating food is not covered by the law for crying out loud,

Why the "for crying out loud?" That's an example of the law being well written in a way that covers the knee jerk reactions to "it's too broad, it's badly written!"

> the government's own advisors that are the ones raising concerns with the broad applicability

What's your issue with this? They're advisors, it's their job to raise concerns that lead to the inclusion of exemptions like the one you're "crying out loud" about.

> it wasn't even considered in the original drafting of the bill.

That's why bills go through various stages of drafting and debate, and why parliament seeks out and considers the advice from industry. It's "laughable" to judge the quality of a law by the original draft, just as it would be too judge a piece of software by the initial commit.