August 2026

Chapter 65 of the Acts of 2026, effective April 19, 2026, changed the Massachusetts quantity rules for marijuana possession and transfers. For a person who is at least twenty-one, the lawful amount outside the home increased from one ounce to two ounces. Possession of more than two ounces but no more than three ounces outside the home is a civil offense rather than a crime. A qualifying gift between adults may now include up to two ounces or the equivalent amount of marijuana products.

The three numbers serve different purposes. Two ounces is the adult personal-use limit outside a residence. Ten ounces remains the express residential limit, apart from marijuana produced by plants lawfully cultivated there. Three ounces is the upper boundary for civil treatment of simple possession. Conduct involving more than three ounces, payment, distribution, cultivation beyond the statutory limits, impaired driving, or another independent offense requires a separate analysis.

The change affects more than the charging decision. The new quantities matter when police rely on marijuana odor, visible marijuana, packaging, or weight to justify an exit order, detention, or search. They also matter when a person asks whether an incident should create a criminal record. The current statutes, however, do not make every marijuana-related act lawful, and Massachusetts law does not control the federal immigration consequences.

The Changes Took Effect on April 19, 2026

Chapter 65 is an emergency law approved on April 19, 2026. Its amendments to the personal-use and civil-possession quantities took effect that day.

The current quantities govern conduct on or after April 19, 2026. A pending case based on earlier conduct requires a separate analysis of the former statute, the charge, and any retroactivity issue. The new law should not be treated as an automatic dismissal of every case involving conduct before its effective date.

The Act made five changes that matter most in an individual criminal case.

1. It increased the amount an adult may possess outside the home from one ounce to two ounces.
2. It increased the amount one adult may give another adult without payment from one ounce to two ounces.
3. It moved the upper civil-possession boundary from two ounces to three ounces.
4. It directed the Cannabis Control Commission to establish equivalency and conversion standards for marijuana products.
5. It excluded the weight of nonmarijuana ingredients in edibles, drinks, topical products, and other preparations from the statutory definition of marijuana.

The Legislature also changed the Cannabis Control Commission’s structure, licensing provisions, and industry rules. Those regulatory changes matter to licensed businesses. The sections below address the provisions most likely to determine whether an individual’s conduct is lawful, civil, or criminal.

What a Person Who Is at Least Twenty-One May Possess

Under M.G.L. c. 94G, § 7(a), a person who is at least twenty-one may possess, use, purchase, process, or manufacture two ounces or less of marijuana, or the equivalent amount of marijuana products as determined by the Cannabis Control Commission.

The residence rule remains different. Section 7(a)(2) permits possession within the person’s primary residence of up to ten ounces, together with marijuana produced by plants cultivated there within the statutory limits. A person may cultivate no more than six plants for personal use, and no more than twelve plants may be cultivated on the premises at one time.

The rules can be summarized this way.

The locking requirement is easy to miss. M.G.L. c. 94G, § 13(b) requires marijuana or marijuana products exceeding two ounces in a residence to be secured by a lock. A violation carries a civil penalty of not more than $100 and forfeiture of the marijuana.

The ten-ounce residential provision does not authorize an unlimited home supply. It also does not displace the plant limits, security requirements, rules against public visibility of the plants, or laws governing distribution. A complete analysis asks where the marijuana was kept, how much was present, how it was produced or acquired, whether it was locked when required, and whether the evidence supports personal use or a transfer.

Possession of More Than Two but No More Than Three Ounces Is Civil

Chapter 65 amended two statutes to make the three-ounce line clear.

For a person who is at least twenty-one, M.G.L. c. 94G, § 13(e) provides that possession outside the home of more than two ounces but no more than three ounces is subject only to a civil penalty of not more than $100 and forfeiture of the amount not allowed by the personal-use provision. The person is not subject to another criminal or civil punishment or disqualification solely for that conduct.

M.G.L. c. 94C, § 32L now states more broadly that possession of three ounces or less is only a civil offense. The section preserves distinct age-based consequences, discussed below, and expressly leaves intact laws governing impaired driving, unlawful prescription forms of THC, possession of more than three ounces, and selling, manufacturing, or trafficking.

Read together, the two statutes create three quantity bands. An adult may lawfully possess up to two ounces outside the home. The next ounce is not lawful personal-use possession, but simple possession within the band above two and through three ounces is civil rather than criminal. More than three ounces falls outside that civil protection.

Quantity alone does not answer a distribution charge. A smaller amount may still support a criminal charge if the Commonwealth proves an unlawful sale or an intent to distribute for payment. A larger amount does not relieve the Commonwealth of proving possession, knowledge, identity of the substance, and any required intent. The firm’s page on Massachusetts drug distribution and possession with intent addresses those distinct elements.

The Rules for People Under Twenty-One

The adult legalization provision in chapter 94G begins at age twenty-one. A person under twenty-one does not receive the same lawful-possession protection merely because the amount is two ounces or less.

Section 32L nevertheless makes possession of three ounces or less a civil offense. A person who is eighteen through twenty-one is subject to a $100 civil penalty and forfeiture. The statutory wording includes age twenty-one in that civil-offense provision, while chapter 94G separately protects qualifying adult conduct beginning at age twenty-one. For a person who is exactly twenty-one, the chapter 94G protection controls conduct within its terms, and the civil rule addresses possession beyond the lawful adult amount through three ounces.

For a person under eighteen, the same civil penalty and forfeiture provisions apply if the person completes the drug-awareness program described in M.G.L. c. 94C, § 32M. A parent or guardian must be notified. Failure to complete the program and required community service within one year can increase the civil penalty under § 32N.

Chapter 94G also separately regulates an underage attempt to buy marijuana, misrepresentation of age, cultivation by a person under twenty-one, and furnishing marijuana to a person under twenty-one. A quantity that receives civil treatment as simple possession can therefore accompany another charge based on acquisition, identification, cultivation, furnishing, or conduct involving a motor vehicle. The Massachusetts drug-crimes FAQs address the charge-specific questions.

A Gift Is Not the Same as a Sale

Chapter 65 increased the permitted adult gifting amount. Under § 7(a)(4), a person who is at least twenty-one may give or otherwise transfer without remuneration up to two ounces of marijuana, or the equivalent amount of marijuana products, to another person who is at least twenty-one. The transfer cannot be advertised or otherwise promoted to the public.

Three conditions are central.

1. Both people must be at least twenty-one.
2. The amount cannot exceed two ounces or the applicable product equivalent.
3. The transfer must be without remuneration and cannot be advertised or promoted to the public.

“Without remuneration” means that the transfer cannot be exchanged for money, property, services, or another thing of value. Calling a transaction a gift does not control when the evidence shows payment or a reciprocal exchange. Messages, payment records, packaging, advertisements, and the surrounding transaction may therefore matter more than the label either person used.

Unlicensed sale remains criminal. The fact that chapter 94G protects a limited gift does not eliminate the distribution provisions in chapter 94C. Massachusetts distribution law also does not require profit. Outside the protected adult-gift provision, a transfer can qualify as distribution even if the Commonwealth proves no commercial markup. The firm’s drug-crime defense page explains the larger statutory framework.

Concentrates, Edibles, and Product Equivalency

Chapter 65 replaced the former five-gram concentrate sublimit with “the equivalent amount of marijuana products as determined by the commission.” The Commission’s current rules therefore determine the applicable product equivalency.

The Act also changed the definition of marijuana in M.G.L. c. 94C, § 1. Marijuana no longer includes the weight of another ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare a topical or oral administration, food, drink, or other product. The gross weight of a brownie, gummy, beverage, or topical preparation is therefore not automatically the marijuana weight. The statutory definition, the amount of marijuana or active THC, and the Commission’s product-equivalency rules address different questions and must be applied separately.

In Administrative Order No. 6, effective April 19, 2026, the Commission set adult-use retail and delivery limits while it completed the regulatory process. For those sales limits, two ounces of marijuana flower equals:

• ten grams of active THC in marijuana concentrate, including tinctures; or
• 1,000 milligrams of active THC in edibles.

Those are adult-use retail and delivery equivalencies. The order expressly states that it does not apply to the medical-use regulations. Product form, active THC, combined purchases, medical status, and the regulation in force on the relevant date should be checked before applying a numerical equivalent to a criminal case. A retail rule should not be quoted as though it resolved every evidentiary question about possession, gifting, or the weight of a mixed product.

What Chapter 65 Did Not Change

The higher possession limits did not authorize every use or transfer of marijuana.

Operating under the influence remains criminal. Section 32L expressly preserves laws governing motor vehicles and conduct while under the influence of marijuana or THC. Massachusetts has no per se THC concentration for ordinary marijuana OUI, but the Commonwealth may prosecute if it proves that marijuana diminished the defendant’s ability to operate safely. The firm’s page on Massachusetts marijuana and drug OUI explains the elements and evidence.

Public consumption remains a civil offense. Section 13(c) prohibits public consumption and smoking marijuana where tobacco smoking is prohibited, subject to the statute’s authorized-consumption exception. The general civil penalty is not more than $100.

An open container in the passenger area remains prohibited. Section 13(d) imposes a civil penalty of not more than $500 for an open container of marijuana or marijuana products in the passenger area of a motor vehicle on a way or place to which the public has access. The statute defines which secured or rear areas fall outside the passenger area.

Unlicensed sales and trafficking remain criminal. Chapter 65 changed the limited adult gift and personal-possession quantities. It did not repeal the laws against unlawful sale, possession with intent to distribute, manufacture, or trafficking.

Furnishing marijuana to a person under twenty-one remains an offense. Section 13(i) provides its own fine and incarceration provisions, subject to its definition and medical-use exception.

How the New Quantities Affect Stops, Exit Orders, and Searches

Massachusetts appellate decisions restricted police reliance on marijuana odor before Chapter 65. In Commonwealth v. Cruz, 459 Mass. 459 (2011), the Supreme Judicial Court held that burnt-marijuana odor alone, without an additional fact supporting suspicion of criminal conduct, did not justify an exit order after decriminalization. In Commonwealth v. Overmyer, 469 Mass. 16 (2014), the Court held that unburnt-marijuana odor standing alone did not provide probable cause to search an automobile.

Commonwealth v. Craan, 469 Mass. 24 (2014), and Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 472 Mass. 767 (2015), applied the decriminalization policy to related vehicle-search and stop questions.

Those opinions discuss the one-ounce quantity in force when the cases arose. The quotations remain historically accurate, but the statutory numbers changed. Current police and court analysis must begin with the two-ounce lawful adult amount and the three-ounce civil ceiling.

Odor does not reveal weight. It also does not establish payment, age, impaired operation, unlawful furnishing, or another fact that turns protected or civil conduct into a crime. A lawful search may still rest on independent evidence, including observations that support impaired operation, a visible quantity and circumstances supporting an unlawful amount, evidence of a paid transfer, or another recognized ground for police action.

No published Massachusetts appellate decision had applied the new Chapter 65 quantities to a stop or search as of August 2026. A current suppression analysis should therefore do two things: apply the existing constitutional decisions to the precise police action, and replace their historical quantity premise with the statute in force when the incident occurred. The firm’s guides to traffic stops, exit orders, and pretext searches and illegal searches and seizures address the separate justification required at each step.

Civil Possession of Three Ounces or Less Does Not Create CORI

Section 32L states that information concerning possession of three ounces or less is not criminal offender record information, evaluative information, or intelligence information and cannot be recorded in the CORI system. That rule follows from the Legislature’s treatment of the conduct as civil rather than criminal.

A criminal case involving marijuana may still create CORI when the charge rests on another act, such as unlawful distribution, possession with intent, impaired driving, furnishing to a minor, or possession above the civil threshold. A person reviewing a record should read the complaint and disposition rather than infer the charge from the substance alone.

Chapter 65 did not add its new quantities to the list of older marijuana enactments expressly named in M.G.L. c. 276, § 100K 1/4. That provision mandates expungement of specified records associated with amounts decriminalized by the enactments it identifies.

A record based on conduct newly decriminalized by Chapter 65 requires a case-specific review of § 100K(a)(2), which addresses an offense that is no longer a crime, together with the exact charge and the existing record. The new law should not be described as creating automatic expungement for every older marijuana case. The firm’s pages on sealing and expunging a Massachusetts criminal record and the Massachusetts sealing and expungement standards explain the available routes.

State Law Does Not Control the Federal Immigration Result

Chapter 65 changed Massachusetts law. It did not amend federal controlled-substance or immigration law.

For deportability, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) contains a narrow exception for a single offense involving possession for personal use of thirty grams or less of marijuana. Thirty grams is far below two ounces. Inadmissibility and the available waiver provisions present separate questions. A state-law conclusion that possession was lawful or civil does not establish that the same conduct is safe under every federal immigration rule.

A noncitizen should have the federal analysis completed before admitting possession, accepting a disposition, traveling, applying to adjust status, or filing a record petition. The firm’s immigration consequences of Massachusetts criminal charges page explains why the state and federal definitions must be applied separately.

What to Review in a Marijuana Possession or Distribution Case

The current law makes the factual review more exact, not less. Counsel should identify:

1. the date of the alleged conduct;
2. the person’s age;
3. the measured amount and the method used to measure it;
4. whether the material was flower, concentrate, an edible, or a mixed product;
5. whether the marijuana was outside the home, inside a primary residence, or in a vehicle;
6. whether a residential amount exceeding two ounces was secured by a lock;
7. whether a transfer occurred and whether either person provided money or another thing of value;
8. whether the transfer was advertised or promoted;
9. whether the Commonwealth alleges impaired driving, furnishing to a person under twenty-one, unlawful cultivation, or another independent offense; and
10. what facts supported the stop, exit order, detention, warrant, consent request, and search.

The complaint should identify a crime, not merely conduct that chapter 94G protects or § 32L makes civil. Where police obtained the evidence through a vehicle, home, phone, or account search, the constitutional issue should be addressed before the case is evaluated as though the evidence were automatically admissible. The firm’s article on when police may search a car in Massachusetts explains the vehicle-search exceptions and the marijuana decisions.

Bottom Line

Since April 19, 2026, a person who is at least twenty-one may possess up to two ounces of marijuana outside the home and may give up to two ounces or the applicable product equivalent to another adult without payment or public promotion. Possession outside the home of more than two ounces but no more than three ounces is civil rather than criminal. Possession of three ounces or less receives civil treatment under § 32L, with separate consequences for people under twenty-one.

The increased amounts do not authorize unlicensed sales, impaired driving, public consumption, open containers in a vehicle’s passenger area, or furnishing marijuana to a person under twenty-one. They also do not change federal immigration law. Every case still turns on age, amount, location, date, product form, payment, and the legality of the police investigation.

Attorney Joe Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995 and represents clients in marijuana, drug-distribution, motor-vehicle-search, and criminal-record matters in the Boston Municipal Court and Massachusetts District Courts. Serpa Law Office can be reached at 617.936.0201.