Higher Education - Scholarships for Correctional Officers
HB 852 would update Maryland education laws to require public schools and institutions of higher education to include more explicit opioid overdose prevention information in their drug education and safety policies. In K-12 schools, the State Board’s drug addiction and prevention curriculum would have to cover the lethal effects of fentanyl and the mitigating effects of naloxone or other opioid overdose-reversing medications, delivered in grade bands and as a stand-alone unit. The bill also revises school policy requirements so that schools must authorize any individual acting in good faith to administer naloxone in an emergency, allow students, staff, and other lawfully present individuals to possess naloxone on school property and at school-sponsored events, and continue to maintain and store naloxone for emergency use.
For higher education, the bill would require each eligible institution to maintain a policy on heroin and opioid addiction prevention that includes student awareness training, resources for part-time students, naloxone storage, overdose response procedures, and training for campus police or other designated personnel. It adds a requirement that any training include information on the mitigating effects of naloxone or other opioid overdose-reversing medication, and it expands possession authorization so students, staff, and other lawfully present individuals may possess naloxone on campus. The bill also broadens good-faith liability protections for people who respond to an overdose emergency and keeps annual reporting requirements for overdose incidents at schools and colleges.
The bill would amend several sections of the Education Article, including provisions governing public-school drug education, school naloxone policies, and higher-education opioid prevention policies. It does not create a new standalone program so much as revise existing education and safety mandates to make naloxone access, training, and overdose response more explicit across public schools and state-funded higher education institutions. The effective date is July 1, 2025.
Overall sentiment appears supportive and public-health oriented, with the bill framed as a student safety measure titled the “Protecting Our Kids From Overdoses Act.” Although no committee transcript or vote record is provided, the bill’s structure suggests an emphasis on prevention, emergency preparedness, and liability protection for good-faith responders. The main policy tension is likely around expanding who may possess and administer naloxone in schools and on campuses, and whether schools and institutions can implement these requirements without added administrative burden or concern about misuse, though the bill itself is written to encourage broad access and rapid response.
HB 852 would amend the Education Article to expand and clarify opioid overdose prevention requirements for public schools and certain institutions of higher education. It would require updated curriculum content, broader naloxone possession and administration authority, stronger good-faith immunity protections, and continued incident reporting to the Maryland State Department of Education and the higher-education commission. The bill affects school boards, school personnel, students, campus police, and other lawfully present individuals by making naloxone access and overdose response policies more permissive and more explicit in state law.
No committee testimony or recorded votes are provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support in the available history. Based on the bill text and title, the measure is presented in a strongly protective, public-health-focused manner, with an apparent goal of preventing overdose deaths in educational settings. The overall tone is proactive and safety-oriented, and the inclusion of liability protections suggests an effort to reassure schools and responders about implementation.
The most notable points of contention are likely to be the bill’s expansion of naloxone possession and administration authority to any individual acting in good faith, including students and other lawfully present persons, and the requirement that schools and colleges maintain naloxone on site. Some stakeholders may view these provisions as necessary life-saving measures, while others may raise concerns about training, oversight, storage, implementation costs, or the scope of immunity from liability. Another possible point of debate is whether the expanded curriculum and policy mandates impose additional administrative burdens on local school systems and higher-education institutions.