Section 32M. An offender under the age of eighteen is required to complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense for possession of 2 ounces or less of marihuana. In addition to the civil penalties authorized by Section 32L and 32N of this Chapter, the failure of such an offender to complete such a program may be a basis for delinquency proceedings for persons under the age of 18 at the time of their offense. The drug awareness program must provide at least four hours of classroom instruction or group discussion and ten hours of community service. In addition to the programs and curricula it must establish and maintain pursuant to Section 7 of Chapter 18A of the General Laws, the bureau of educational services within the department of youth services or any successor to said bureau shall develop the drug awareness programs. The subject matter of such drug awareness programs shall be specific to the use and abuse of marihuana and other controlled substances with particular emphasis on early detection and prevention of abuse of substances.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Keefner, 961 N.E.2d 1083 (Mass. 2012).
Commonwealth v. Keefner, 961 N.E.2d 1083 (Mass. 2012). “” Section 3 of the act, which is codified at G. L. c. 94C, § 32M, requires youthful offenders to complete a drug awareness program “within one year of the offense for possession of one ounce or less of marihauna.”
Wesson v. Town of Salisbury, 13 F. Supp. 3d 171 (D. Mass. 2014). “Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 32M. The Act does not alter the criminal penalties for distributing or cultivating marihuana, no matter how small the amount.”
Pineau v. Attorney Gen. (Mass. 2026). “" They refer to section 5 of the proposed measure, which would amend G. L. c. 94C, § 32M, to provide that "[a]n offender under the age of [21] is required to complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense for possession of 2 ounces or less of marihuana," and…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.