with the legislative intent of the statute. Pretrial intervention is an avenue open to a large class of offenders, whereas conditional discharge is only available to a limited and specifically identified group. Given this narrow reading of § 27, the conclusion is inescapable that extending conditional discharge to an entirely new class of offenders, namely those charged with obtaining possession of a CDS by fraud under N.J.S.A. 24:21-22(a)(3), would be beyond the explicit language and legitimate scope of § 27. In further support of her contention that conditional discharges are appropriate for violations of N.J.S.A. 24:21-22(a)(3), Telcher relies on Law Division cases which have extended § 27 beyond its literal terms. See State v. D’Ambrosio, 200 N.J.Super. 463 (Law Div.1985) (<HOLDING>); State v. Sanders, 169 N.J.Super. 596 (Law
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 holding that a spouses joint occupancy of a home where drug paraphernalia was found was insufficient to establish the spouses constructive possession holding in part that defendant charged with unlawful possession of heroin marihuana and narcotics implements was eligible for a conditional discharge holding that possession of a pistol in public requires knowing possession holding that a reputation for sobriety from drugs and alcohol is pertinent to the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia because intent to use is an element of the offense