Representative Zhu Lieyu, deputy to the National People’s Congress and director of the Guangdong Guoding Law Firm, suggested that “one drug use, life-long ban” should be written into laws and regulations, to rectify the drug-related chaos of stars, and promote the formation of a good atmosphere in the entertainment industry that does not dare to involve drugs. Representative Zhu Lieyu said that drug abuse by public figures has a great negative impact on society, especially the youth group, setting a bad example, and affecting the formation of young people’s right and wrong views; allowing drug addicts to come back will tarnish the atmosphere of the entertainment industry. The stipulation that “one time drug use, life-long ban” can increase the cost of star drug use and form a certain legal deterrent, which is conducive to the effective development of drug prevention education, and has a profound impact on purifying social atmosphere and advocating healthy values.
The National People’s Congress will be held in 2021. Zhu Lieyu, deputy to the National People’s Congress and director of Guangdong Guoding Law Firm, has prepared a number of proposals and suggestions, including the star drug abuse incidents that have attracted social attention in recent years and the application of law. Regarding the frequent appearance of drug-related artists in the entertainment industry, Zhu Lieyu said that the chaos manifested in the industry norms, insufficient restrictions on “star drug control” by public opinion, and the absence of laws and regulations. Therefore, Zhu Lieyu suggested that “one time drug use, life-long ban” should be written into laws and regulations to rectify star drug-related chaos. In addition, Zhu Lieyu made suggestions on the legal application of the controversial and courageous actions in recent years. He believes that it is difficult to grasp the behavioral standards of the courageous actions of justice, and should not be too strict for those who seek justice. “One drug use, life-long ban” On June 24, 2020, the “China Drug Situation Report 2019” released by China Anti-Drug Network pointed out that by the end of 2019, there were 2.148 million drug users in China. The report specifically mentions that entertainers are the main abusers of marijuana. For this reason, Zhu Lieyu, after investigating the investigation with the police officers in charge of anti-drug work, put forward the “Proposal on “One-time drug use, life-long ban” (hereinafter referred to as the “Proposal”). Zhu Lieyu believes that while enjoying the social resources brought by millions of traffic, public figures should take up corresponding social responsibilities, establish a positive public image, and promote positive values to the society. “The drug abuse behavior of celebrities breaks through their own moral bottom line, but also creates a huge negative demonstration effect for the society and others.” Zhu Lieyu wrote in the “Suggestion” that behind the drug-related chaos in the entertainment industry, the industry norms and society are revealed. Public opinion has insufficient restrictions on “star drug control” and the absence of laws and regulations. Therefore, Zhu Lieyu suggested that “one time drug use, life-long ban” should be written into laws and regulations to rectify star drug-related chaos. Zhu Lieyu told China News Weekly that in the current society, celebrities are idols and role models for many young people, while young people have shallow social experience, immature psychological development, and weak ability to distinguish right from wrong. They recognize the harmful effects of marijuana, methamphetamine, ecstasy, K powder and other drugs. Knowledge is extremely limited, and drug use by public figures may make the teenagers who admire them do the same. In addition, the high relapse rate of drugs is also one of the reasons Zhu Lieyu made this proposal. Zhu Lieyu revealed that the relapse rate of drug abuse is very high. In previous reports, most drug-related stars in the entertainment industry took synthetic drugs represented by methamphetamine. This type of drug withdrawal is very difficult, even after compulsory drug treatment, returning to acting. The tremendous pressure in the world may cause drug-related persons to regenerate their cravings for drugs. “There are many examples in the past news. After the administrative detention of drug addicts, celebrities who took drugs were arrested again for drug abuse, and several others were arrested,” Zhu Lieyu said. Regarding whether the restriction on the comeback of drug-related artists and the prohibition of broadcasting their film and television works violate the principle of equality for all at the legal level, Zhu Lieyu believes that this is not a discrimination against drug-related artists, nor does it infringe on their rights to employment or social security. “Some people questioned why drug use in other industries has no such consequences.” Zhu Lieyu explained that restricting the broadcasting of film and television works of drug-related artists is a special occupational problem, just as people with infectious diseases cannot be chefs. People with a history of sexual assault and harassment cannot be teachers. “Prohibition of employment has a legal basis. Lifetime bans restrict drug-related personnel’s participation in behaviors with broad communication significance, and are restrictions on their occupation or work content.” Some local drug-related laws prohibit drug-related personnel in the cultural market. The entry system provides some references. On April 1, 2016, the “Shanghai Drug Control Regulations” was formally implemented for trial. The regulations stipulate that for those who have been investigated and dealt with by the public security organs for less than three years or have not yet given up drug addiction, they will participate in the production of movies, TV series, and radio as the main creators. Television programs and endorsements of commercial advertisements are not broadcast. In 2018, the “Shandong Drug Control Regulations” introduced similar rules. Zhu Lieyu said that although local regulations and industry norms punish celebrities for drug-related behavior to a certain extent, the current measures are still not enough to curb drug abuse by celebrities, and some drug-related artists can still exploit loopholes in the system. Therefore, it is necessary to accurately define the scope of the “banned performance” and clarify the joint and several liabilities of stakeholders and the company. The “Fuzhou Zhaoyu case” and the “male student kicking and attacking the chest man” incidents in Yongzhou City, Hunan Province have made the case of fighting for justice and being held accountable have become a controversial topic in recent years, and the scale of fighting for justice has become the focus of the topic. This year, at the National Congress of the People’s Republic of China, Zhu Lieyu brought “Recommendations on Proper Defense for the Casualties of Gangsters Caused by Acts of Righteousness”. He believes that the boundaries and scales of Acting for Righteousness cannot be too strict. At the same time, it is necessary to improve the legal protection system for the courage of justice, clarify the legal attributes of the courage of justice, and the casualties of gangsters caused by the courage of justice should be handled in accordance with legitimate defense. “(The scale) is very difficult to grasp and is very precise, and you cannot be too strict with those who do what is righteous.” Zhu Lieyu told China News Weekly that stopping illegal and criminal acts is a kind of righteousness, and the perpetrators of illegal and criminal acts are generally in the process of crimes. Using violence, without special training, ordinary people can easily cause the offender to be injured in the process of doing justice. Taking the “middle school student kicking and attacking the chest man” incident in Yongzhou, Hunan Province as an example, Zhu Lieyu said that although Hu had kicked the molester Lei, Lei’s illegal activities had been terminated, but because Lei was trying to escape at the time, Hu stopped it. It is reasonable for the suspect to run away and kick him down, and it is an act of bravery. “Mechanical understanding of relevant laws and regulations and taking compulsory measures not only are unfair to the parties, but also violate the general perception of the public on the moral level.” Zhu Lieyu introduced, when illegal and criminal acts are taking place, criminals often will Using violent means to resist or try to escape, the safety of those who act bravely is also at risk. “Courageous actions for righteousness and legitimate defense have a high degree of overlap.” Zhu Lieyu believes that from the provisions of the two, what is important for action on justice is to protect the interests of others. The legal consequences are that if one is harmed, civil liability is borne by the infringer in principle; justified defense emphasizes It is to protect one’s own interests and not to bear civil or criminal liability for illegal infringers. Since the legitimate defensive behavior to protect one’s own interests causes the injury or death of the illegal infringing person, no legal responsibility is required, and the courageous behavior made to protect the interests of others causes the injury or death of the illegal infringement person and should not be held legally responsible. How to reduce the cost of righteousness from a legal point of view is the focus of Zhu Lieyu’s proposal. He said that handling it in accordance with legitimate defense can provide certain legal support for righteousness. Taking the Zhao Yu case written in the Supreme Procuratorate’s work report as an example, if the act of acting bravely is not protected by the law, and the person himself has to fight against actual risks, the public’s ability to act bravely will be greatly reduced. On September 3, 2020, the Supreme People’s Court announced the “Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security on the Application of the Rightful Defense System in accordance with the law,” stating that it resolutely recognizes and effectively corrects “who can cause and who is justified” and “who is dead or injured” in accordance with the law. The erroneous tendency of “who has reason” effectively defends the spirit of the rule of law that “the law cannot make concessions to lawlessness.”