With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CDS act when it adopted the more expansive Code of Criminal Justice, in part by extending PTI to a wider class of persons. Thus, the court sanctioned a narrow construction of § 27 in contrast to the more expansive code, finding that this result furthered the legislative intent behind these procedures. Collins clearly requires courts to apply § 27 strictly, confining it to first time offenders charged with simple possession or use. First offenders charged with more serious offenses, such as obtaining CDS by fraud or distribution, and second offenders may seek PTI, but not conditional discharge. The clear import of Collins is that N.J.S.A. 24:21-27 should be strictly interpreted and applied. Such a narrow construction is entirely 979); State v. Di Luzio, 130 N.J.Super. 222 (Law Div.1974) (<HOLDING>). In State v. Sanders, a case factually

A: holding evidence sufficient to prove possession of heroin with intent to distribute where defendant secreted heroin for another knowing of others intent to sell the heroin
B: holding in part that defendant charged with unlawful possession of heroin marihuana and narcotics implements was eligible for a conditional discharge
C: holding that evidence supported finding of constructive possession of concealed narcotics in part because narcotics paraphernalia was found in residence
D: holding that  27 extends to possession of drug paraphernalia a violation of njsa 242147 where defendant was also charged with possession of marihuana under 242120a4
B.