Only "if you obtain a permit for home growth" is stated in the legislative. They're checking the resident doesn't grow more than 4 plants, or have plants larger than a meter in height. I liken it to a home inspection for a structural/electrical/plumbing work permit.

It's at the municipality's discretion I think

A meter tall pot plant is a tiny pot plant.

Maybe

What a cute li'l shrub!

Not mine!

But Big Bud is an obvious choice for indoor under a meter tall.

My friend works at a dispensary and they have some plants as tall as I am. They're not nearly as dense as that glorious little plant though.

My sister got a DUI the day after drinking. We have "zero tolerance", and her breath apparently had enough alcohol to go above zero.

With the swabs, how long will they detect back?

This commercially available one says 4-6 hours but has a tolerance of 25 ng to test positive.

According to the legislation:

• 2 nanograms to 5 nanograms of THC: Punishable by a fine of up to $1,000

• 5 nanograms or more: Mandatory minimum penalty of a $1,000 fine for a first offence, with escalating jail time for those convicted more than once — from 30 days for a second conviction to 120 days for each subsequent offence. Maximum penalties range from two years (less a day) to 10 years.

According to thcclean

Now before you get excited, here’s the disadvantage of saliva tests. They are very good at detecting very recent marijuana use. If less than 24 hours has elapsed between your last joint and the time of the test, you will likely test positive. And more sensitive laboratory tests can easily detect it up to 72 hours after intake. Chronic heavy users facing a sensitive saliva test can be detected for up to a week in general.

And lab sensitive tests test down to 0.5 ng. In other words, it sounds like the test that will be used is near lab quality (which sounds expensive) and will leave a casual user exposed for 72 hours afterwards for facing a "positive" test.

The testing thresholds also seems absurdly low.

More people will now be getting arrested for driving impaired than were getting arrested for pot.

Invest in the swab company.

And for what?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2016/03/17/new-study-suggests-marijuanas-impact-on-crash-risk-has-been-greatly-exaggerated/#afd08947f112

Reporters and anti-pot activists commonly warn that marijuana use doubles the risk of a car crash. Even if that were true, toking would pale in comparison to drinking as a road hazard, since research indicates that a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% quintuples the risk of an accident. But according to an analysis that’s about to be published by the journal Addiction, the increase in crash risk associated with marijuana use is roughly 20% to 30%, as opposed to the widely cited estimate of 92%.

In other words, if your chance of having an accident is 1 in 60,000, then it's 1 in 50,000 if you are high at the time, but we should spend billions on testing to spend people who have never driven high to jail?

Where do you live that has these unbelievable limits?

https://lifesafer.ca/blog/nova-scotia-zero-alcohol-tolerance-for-young-drivers-plus-new-ignition-interlock-law/

Fuuuq son.

this is nothing new, it has been this way from the very beginning.