BILL ALLOWS DRUG USER TO SUE DEALER

Critics Says Proposal Rewards Lawbreakers

Drug users are not entirely responsible for their addictions and would be
able to sue their dealers in civil court under a bill up for a vote in the
state House this week.

"People get sucked into it and lose their free will, so to speak," said the
bill's sponsor, James R. Roebuck Jr., D-Philadelphia. "This is another tool
to help the fight against drugs, the scourge on communities." The bill is
an attempt to hurt drug dealers where it hurts most -- their profits.

Critics say the bill is unnecessary, redundant and could allow drug dealers
to sue to put rival dealers out of business.

And the bill would allow drug users to be financially rewarded for breaking
the law by doing illegal narcotics, critics note. That is a major swing in
legal philosophy, which currently prohibits criminals from profiting from
their illegal acts.

The bill would allow drug users to sue their suppliers in civil court for
any economic damages caused by their product, and for emotional distress,
mental anguish and loss of companionship.

The bill also would allow users' employers, direct family members and
rehabilitation centers to sue drug dealers. The bill has a provision that
would allow a suit to be brought against a dealer on behalf of a fetus if a
pregnant woman takes drugs.

The aim is to make drug dealers pay for the devastation they wreck on
clients and their families, employers and those who treat their addictions.

"I expect easy sailing on this," said Roebuck. "I can't imagine this would
engender any debate."

The bill has generated little opposition in Harrisburg, but that may be
because few people know about it.

"It's news to me," said Annmarie Kaiser, executive director of the
Pennsylvania District Attorney's Association, which has not taken a
position on the bill.

If the bill becomes law, prosecutors would face the unsavory job of
convicting lawbreakers who could then reap financial windfalls from their
illegal acts by successfully suing their drug suppliers.

One provision in the bill allows a user to sue any and all dealers in their
"target community," whether the dealer dealt drugs to them directly or not.
The bill does not define target community.

That could allow drug users who also deal drugs to sue other dealers to put
them out of business, said Claire Capristo, chief trial deputy in the
Allegheny County District Attorney's office.

"Most of our dealers are users too," she said. "I can envision a
user-dealer suing his competition. This is pretty funny. Obviously, there
are a million things they haven't thought of in this."

Besides, the bill is redundant, Capristo said. Forfeiture laws allow
prosecutors to seize money and assets accumulated by a dealer through his
or her illegal trade, she noted.

There also is a question whether the law would be effective. The bill
assumes drug dealers keep their financial assets in their own names. A
common tactic to avoid paying civil judgments is to have assets placed in
the name of others, such as spouses. Shady home remodeling contractors do
this routinely.

Roebuck said drug dealers may be smart but aren't likely to be
sophisticated enough to hide their assets.

"Hey, they flaunt everything," he said. "It's part of the lifestyle. Even
if only one or two suits are successful, that's something. It's another tool."

The bill was modeled after similar laws enacted in Arkansas, Oklahoma,
Hawaii, Illinois and Michigan. The laws grew out of former President George
Bush's 1993 Commission on Model State Drug Laws, which created a five-book
proposal of potential laws to combat drugs, many of which were adopted
nationwide.

It is unclear if any of the laws in other states have survived legal
challenges. The state House passed a similar measure last year without
debate, but the bill died in the Senate.

The bill was reintroduced in the House, was approved by the judiciary
committee, and may come to a full vote of the House as early as today.

The basic philosophy of the bill is this: Drug dealers should not be
allowed to keep their illegal profits, said Brian Preski, a lawyer for the
House Judiciary Committee.

"There are a lot of crack babies born. Why should they not be allowed to
recover" money from the dealers who indirectly addicted them, Preski wondered.

Preski also said a drug user's family and employer should be able to
recover money from the dealer who supplied the drug that indirectly harmed
them by causing a user's drug-induced behaviors.

"I think it's a great theory to say that the people who hook people on
drugs should pay for it," said Capristo. This bill, however, isn't the
answer, she said.