All things considered, it would have been much easier for the Trudeau government to simply decriminalize marijuana. Easier, at least, than legalizing the stuff, as proposed in the legislation presented to the House last week.

The very timing of the legislation — surfacing on the last day of a sitting before a two-week spring break — speaks to the problematic nature of the issue.

Decriminalizing cannabis would have involved simply taking it out of the Criminal Code; Canadians would be able to consume it without risking a criminal record. Making it legal — as it has been for medical use since 2001 — will create a regulated industry with widespread ripple effects in marketing, distribution and enforcement, including the matter of impaired driving.

That’s just the tip of the regulatory iceberg. There will be serious implications for federal-provincial relations — the provinces and territories will be responsible for distribution and enforcement — to say nothing of how this might affect administration of the Canada-U.S. border. Canada wants a ‘smart’ border, not a slow one. While states such as Colorado have legalized marijuana, the federal government in Washington has not — and will not do so under the current Trump administration.

Canada does not need cannabis as an irritant in its relationship with Washington. This is why Ottawa is proposing up to 14 years in prison for “taking cannabis across international borders.” That should be an effective deterrent — provided users are aware of it.

How will we end up packaging and selling the weed? Well, the Retail Council of Canada is already consulting its members across the country, as well as the federal and provincial governments. The marijuana industry has become a major client for government relations firms in Ottawa and Toronto.

Ottawa will allow possession of up to 30 grams of dried or undried cannabis per adult, beginning at age 18 (or higher, if so determined by the province or territory in question). For home-grown weed, up to four plants would be permitted per residence, up to 100 cm in height. (How are the provinces and municipalities supposed to enforce that? By knocking on your door and asking how many marijuana plants you have in your house?)

As for marketing and labelling, Ottawa is proposing a plain packaging rule. There will be no Marlboro Man in Canada’s marijuana market. Prohibitions cover “packaging or labelling cannabis in a way that makes it appealing to youth.”

There could be a significant windfall for both federal and provincial governments, but they also need to be careful not to overprice the product and drive customers back to the black market. There could be a significant windfall for both federal and provincial governments, but they also need to be careful not to overprice the product and drive customers back to the black market.

Will cannabis be available over the counter “from a licensed retailer,” as Ottawa proposes, or sold by provincial authorities such as liquor stores? In Ontario and Quebec, that would mean the LCBO and the SAQ — though they probably wouldn’t sell both alcohol and cannabis in the same stores. No marijuana aisles across from the Chardonnay shelf.

There obviously would be a 13 per cent HST charged on cannabis sold in Ontario, but the question is how much Ottawa and the provinces should impose in excise taxes. There could be a significant windfall for both federal and provincial governments, but they also need to be careful not to overprice the product and drive customers back to the black market and organized crime, as high taxes on tobacco have done.

The criminal element is the obvious target of the punitive measures, which would impose fines and jail terms of up to 14 years for “giving or selling” cannabis to youth under 18 years of age, or “production of cannabis beyond home cultivation.”

Then there’s the question of impaired driving under the influence of marijuana or other drugs. While they’re at it, the feds also want to give police the power to demand a breath sample to test for drunk driving without reasonable grounds for suspicion.

For marijuana or other drug use, the cops would be allowed to take “oral fluid samples” from persons suspected of driving “within two hours of having an illegal level of drugs in blood.” How will they determine the two-hour time lapse, and the “illegal level” of drug consumption? Or will the standard be more straightforward — no driving while stoned?

As for drunk driving, Ottawa’s proposal to drop the reasonable suspicion requirement is certain to face a constitutional challenge. It’s stated pretty clearly in Article 8 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

The impaired driving proposal for both drugs and drinking is certain to raise objections from visible minorities and Indigenous Canadians, who may feel they are being singled out by the cops.

As an Indigenous Canadian herself, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould must know this, but her comments last week described the bill as “one of the strongest impaired-driving pieces of legislation in the world.” As for the charter, she said the bill does not violate any constitutional rights. “Ensuring that we have safety on our roads and our highways,” she said, “is of paramount concern.”

Two Canadians in three favour marijuana legalization, including many young voters who moved to the Liberals in 2015 because of Justin Trudeau’s campaign promise to do so. In international terms, the Liberals are in a vanguard. “Canada moves boldly on marijuana,” ran an editorial page headline in Sunday’s New York Times.

As the Times editorial noted: “Should Mr. Trudeau’s bill pass, as expected, Canada would become only the second nation, after Uruguay, to completely legalize marijuana as a consumer product.”

Which isn’t to say getting there will be easy.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.