Dismissing the concerns about poorly worded laws on the basis that they have been considered by legal experts is laughable when it's often legal experts, and in the case of the Psychoactive Substances Act, the government's own advisors that are the ones raising concerns with the broad applicability and unenforceable nature of these controversial laws. The Psychoactive Substances Act has an explicit exemption stating food is not covered by the law for crying out loud, and the exemption for healthcare providers to act within the course of their profession was only added as an amendment, it wasn't even considered in the original drafting of the bill.

> 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.

The standard of proof is reasonable grounds, don't forget your passwords because this is an incredibly low bar to pass.

>in preventing or detecting crime

If the police are requesting a s.49 notice it goes without saying that it will be for preventing or detecting crime, but notices can also be issued to ensure the exercise or performance of public bodies, statutory powers, or statutory duties without such a requirement.

>Disclosure is proportionate.

In regards to what is sought to be achieved by the disclosure. It is not disproportionate to request disclosure for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime regardless of how benign that crime is.

>If the protected information cannot be obtained by reasonable means.

The law has been used against people for failing to give up Facebook passwords. The police routinely ask companies for information without a warrant and they're usually legally denied such requests based on GDPR grounds. 'Reasonably practicable' means nothing if it can be bypassed by police trying their luck without a warrant.