Certainly. Of course, the law as stated has always said that incapacity in itself impairs one's ability to consent in law. The current expansion would, in a sense, separate that to a specific mention of unconsciousness, and then the complainant is incapable of consenting for any reason other than the one referred to, i.e., unconsciousness.
It is simply a direction, I think, to judges and to triers of fact that a number of states can impair a person's ability to consent. It is true that there is still work to do with respect to the line at which someone slips into a state of intoxication, for example. Those are very difficult questions that in some sense will be limited to specific factual circumstances, but certainly I think there is value in at least separating the various ways in which someone could be incapable of consenting.