My theoretical water case could be prosecuted because I would have satisfied 2(a) above.
Now I could easily avoid prosecution by claiming that I did not intend the water to make me stoned, and the prosecution would need to prove that I did intend for it to make me stoned. How will they do this? I don't know. Perhaps they could refer to posts made on internet forums. Someone could post, "Hey guys you've got to try this new drug H2O a.k.a. water. It's the maddest drug I've ever done. It made me stoned out of my mind! I love water!!!!! Gosh this stuff is so good. I can't believe it isn't illegal". This post could then be used in court (after tracing IP addresses, etc.) and 2(a) may be deemed to be satisfied by the court, even if the defendant denies the intent.
Now, even if you don't post on the internet forum, you could still theoretically be prosecuted under 2(b). This is rather unlikely though, as one would hope that an ordinary person would not consider water to have a substantially similar pharmacological effect to marijuana. Nonetheless, it is somewhat frightening, because an ordinary person has very limited knowledge of pharmacology, and it could be envisioned that a determined prosecutor, with convincing expert witnesses, could convince the court that an ordinary person would believe that water has a similar pharmacological effect to marijuana.
Now this scenario is far-fetched because water is generally accepted to not have any mind-altering effects.
However, consider how easy it would be to prosecute someone for the possession of anything, under these laws.
Let's consider any substance X that binds to a receptor (any receptor) in the brain. The prosecution can make the case "Substance X binds to receptors in the brain. THC, the active substance in marijuana, also binds to receptors in the brain. People enjoy consuming marijuana. People also enjoy consuming Substance X. So in conclusion, both these substances bind to proteins in the brain called receptors, and both of these substances cause feelings of well-being in the drug user. Therefore, I emplore you to find the defendant guilty of possession of a dangerous drug, because these dangerous drugs ruin the lives of innocent children and their families, and contribute to criminal activities such as murder, rape, kidnapping and assault."
edit: @AyahuascaSeeker13 Exactly, an ordinary person knows almost nothing about pharmacology, and an ordinary person would be much more likely to view two substances to be similar than someone with more pharmacological knowledge would. Only someone like a pharmacologist or a doctor would be able to make an educated and valid assessment of the similarity of pharmacological effect. Still, we do not have complete understanding of the pharmacological action of certain drugs, and these assessments would be best guesses based on the limited research that has been performed. Furthermore, what actually is meant by "pharmacological effect"? Does this mean binding to the same receptor binding site? To the same receptor subunits? To the same receptors? To neurons that release the same neurotransmitters? To neurons that are located in the same anatomical area? Could the term "pharmacological effect" be extended to psychological effects - pleasure, relaxation, euphoria, etc? Could it be extended to behavioural effects - repeated self-administration? We all repeatedly self-administer food. Is food a dangerous drug?
This legislation is purposely vague, to enable prosecutors to freely prosecute whomever they please.
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
