Is it not likely that an adjudicator sitting in judgment of the effects of this bill, would look at the passage of this bill and say, " The intent of Parliament was to include ecstasy, which was at the time in Schedule 3, but was subsequently put into Schedule 1," and make this bill applicable to the substance commonly referred to as ecstasy.
Il est improbable qu'un arbitre qui doit rendre une décision quant aux répercussions du projet de loi se dise, en lisant ce passage, que l'intention du Parlement était d'introduire l'ecstasy, qui à ce moment-là figurait à l'annexe 3, mais qu'on a ensuite déplacée à l'annexe 1, faisant ainsi en sorte que le projet de loi vise aussi la substance communément appelée ecstasy.