New Jersey Section 2C:35B-1 – Short title

New Jersey’s Drug Dealer Liability Act: Holding Dealers Accountable

New Jersey’s Drug Dealer Liability Act, also known as Section 2C:35B-1, allows individuals harmed by illegal drug use to sue those who provided the drugs. This controversial law aims to curb drug abuse by making dealers financially liable for the damage they cause.

What the Law Actually Says

The official name of Section 2C:35B-1 is the “Drug Dealer Liability Act.” It was enacted in 2001 to give victims of drug abuse and addiction a way to recover damages from those who enabled the drug use. Specifically, it allows people to file civil lawsuits against those who illegally manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess controlled dangerous substances like heroin or methamphetamine.

To win such a lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of their drug addiction or injury. Damages can include medical costs, rehab expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other harms caused by the drug use. If successful, the plaintiff may recover economic, non-economic, and punitive damages[1].

The law also abolished the common law defense that the plaintiff’s voluntary drug use contributed to their own injury. This aimed to prevent dealers from avoiding liability by claiming the plaintiff was complicit or “at fault” for taking drugs. An important exception, however, is that a plaintiff cannot recover damages for harm caused by their use of marijuana, alcohol, or lawful medications[2].

Controversy and Criticism

The Drug Dealer Liability Act sparked controversy when first enacted. Critics argued it was overbroad, unfairly punitive, and violated due process rights[3]. For instance, the law holds dealers strictly liable regardless of intent or negligence. Traffickers and street corner dealers face equal punishment. Critics said this was draconian and failed to match culpability with consequences.

Others argued the law could incentivize frivolous, vindictive lawsuits. They warned that addicts might abuse the law to extort money from former dealers. Or parents could target their child’s dealer out of grief and anger, even if the dealer was minimally responsible. There were also concerns about fairness, cost, and the challenges of proving causation in drug injury cases[4].

Proponents countered that the law gave victims a much-needed tool for restitution and justice. It also allowed society to share the costs of drug abuse rather than leaving victims to bear the burden alone. Some even saw it as an innovative way to deter dealing. If dealers knew they could be sued, maybe they would think twice about peddling such destructive contraband.