Just finished reading the
report and I think overall its not too bad. The main things where they are clueless seem to be:
Road side testing
- Determine whether to establish a per se
limit as part of a comprehensive approach to
cannabis-impaired driving, acting on findings of
the Drugs and Driving Committee, a committee
of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science, a
professional organization of scientists in the
various forensic disciplines
Doesn't work yet so pointless to pursue , as described in the May 2016
report from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Cops can still do the same thing they do now with the standard sobriety test (walk a line, fingers to nose etc). People can smoke the same amount of cannabis and present entirely different levels of intoxication that are completely irrelevant to body mass and therefor blood levels of THC; and the saliva tests are simply unreliable, 25% failure rate, with detection thresholds set very high to reduce the number of false positives. Plus the courts are basically ignoring them as evidence so maybe this is simply an appeasement in the report for the Cops. If a cop pulls you over and wants you to do one of these test FLAT out refuse!
They are starting trials.
Personal production
- A limit of four plants per residence
- A maximum height limit of 100 cm on the plants
- A prohibition on dangerous manufacturing processes
- Reasonable security measures to prevent theft and youth access
- Oversight and approval by local authorities
Just a bunch of ignorance there, to me the limit should be similar to personal Tobacco production (up to 15Kg a year per person). Of course thats a lot really, so maybe 5 Kg/year. With about a million ways to grow cannabis, the idea of being limited to any number of plants is retarded. What if I want to do a high density horizontal short grow or I just grow clones and never flower? Would a tray of 72 clones put me in jail for the same amount of time the current mandatory minimums are set to? (all those clones are considered full plants and would put me away for 6-9 months, even though none were over 3" high and none flowered). This is just effing stupid. Number of plants is irrelevant, harvested weight is relevant. And what the hell do they mean by Oversight and approval by local authorities? no way man!
Seed to sale tracking
- Implement a seed-to-sale tracking system to
prevent diversion and enable product recalls
The report seems to think that this is something the government can do, its not, the government can require it of a producer (i.e. the ability to track their produce) but S2S systems are commercial products that growers would have to invest in at significant expense. There needs to be a set of items each grow needs to track, but that shouldn't be a requirement for expensive hardware/software solutions. Not good for the little guy. Big producers already use seed to sale so, again, kinda clueless.
And of course anywhere they used the word "monopoly" or "control"
However, some organizations believed that a government
monopoly would be the best approach to control and
regulate the production of cannabis, noting that this
model was best placed for controlling use, preventing
diversion, minimizing advertising and helping to control
pricing.
Controlling cannabis prices by increasing or
decreasing the number of production licenses
issued or by imposing limits on the size of
facilities.
On the whole the recommendations are not insane. Some are even encouraging, but these are only recommendations and what the Liberals actually end up doing is likely to be entirely different from the report. So not holding my breath. My bet is corporate monopoly cash grab all the way.
and even what they had to say has to much CONTROL to it...it'll never pass! 
