● 中文摘要： 

　　依據法務部2005年12月公佈之法務統計摘要顯示毒品再犯率竟高達70％，面對如此高之再犯比率，研究者因時任戒治所所長之職，責無旁貸銜命從事立法及實務之深入暸解與檢討。

　　目前世界各國所實施之戒毒模式差異性極大，實頗具爭議。而我國目前尚未建立一套最佳之戒毒模式，面對如此高之再犯率，到底係何階段？何區塊？發生偏差所致，亟待暸解。當務之急即應進行法令層面與實務執行層面徹底進行總檢討，找出原因並謀求改進。

　　本研究基本認為戒毒成效與執行立法刑事政策、對毒品犯之及對其實施之戒毒模式與方法、各司法矯正機關彼此業務連繫，有無執行介面？以及各戒毒實務機關對毒品犯實施之各項戒毒矯正處遇措施是否妥適？有無落實執行法令規定？以及戒治出所後之社會適應性有關。理論上如彼此屬於正相關之關係，如發現前揭各區塊運做妥適良好，則再犯率一定偏低，反之即再犯率相對提高，代表戒毒無效，立待改善。

　　本研究採取量化與質性並行之研究方式，首先從鉅觀面之角度檢視世界各國之毒品政策及發展歷程以及我國毒品政策之沿革及脈絡，再從微觀面之立場，深入檢討毒品危害防制條例之立法規劃與設計，透過問卷調查、深度訪談之方式，暸解司法矯正實務從業人員及受戒治人對現今法令規定暨實務運作之意見與看法，俾作為改進業務之重要參考。

　　量化方面，鑒於過去釵h實證研究之取樣，均以毒品犯為主要研究對象，根據研究者實務經驗以及前述釵h之研究發現，毒品犯之意見與管教人員之看法南轅北轍。例如毒品施用者希望戒治期程愈短愈好，甚至不要機構戒治改由社區處遇戒治，如此之意見並無法反應政策之良窳。惟由於國家之戒毒政策係以毒品施用者為實體，其成效之良窳與受戒治人對戒治流程中之軟硬體之設備，環境之看法及配合度，有密不可分之關係。因此，本研究從實際參與毒品戒治業務之受戒治人及第一線司法執法人員（實際接觸毒品戒治業務之院、檢司法人員與矯正人員）為研究之對象抽樣964件，調查分析其意見，俾能深入了解當前毒品戒治政策之意見與看法，以進一步提出改進之對策。

　　質性訪談部分，則訪問完整歷經立法過程之專家學者暨矯正實務機關之首長11位，探討其對毒品危害防制條例中規定毒品犯之定位，對觀察勒戒所、戒治所分別附設於看守所、監獄之作法以及法務部、行政院衛生署於整體毒品戒治政策中應扮演之角色，以及是否有修法改善之空間等問題，期能彙整分析其意見，研擬出適合我國現行立法與實務相宜之戒毒方針，供司法當局作為日後推動毒品戒治業務之參考。

本研究經過文獻之收集及抽樣之問卷調查分析、深度質性訪談之結果，彙整研究發現如次：

一、再犯率偏高之原因包括：出所後缺乏完善之追蹤輔導機制、衛生醫療區塊一直沒有落實進入戒治體系、大多數之之吸毒犯為受刑人、在監獄中未有接受任何戒毒相關之輔導或治療。
二、戒治處遇計畫與社會適應力之間之相關程度最高。
三、戒治成效與課程安排、家庭附著力及出所後是否有穩定之工作有關。
四、有甚高比例之司法同仁認為戒治無效論，宜設法改正。
五、受戒治人出所後均未能按時報到驗尿，致無法追蹤監控，治療性社區值得推廣。
六、毒品施用者出所後感染愛滋病之可能性仍甚高，無法有效防止愛滋病之感染。
七、有無毒品吸食傾向之標準表，應針對其信度及效度加以研究修正。
八、替代療法值得一試，應由醫師診斷，並由對毒品有研究之專家組成團隊，做適切之處遇。
九、毒品犯離所後，未有任何轉型及過渡之機制，此乃最隱憂之所
在。
十、毒品戒治成效之評估應分為理論、過程與成效三分面加以進行。

根據前揭之研究發現乃提出具體建議如次：

一、觀察勒戒部分
（一）、擴增勒戒處所員額編制、加強勒戒處所醫療支援業
務，選擇部份醫療院所試辦委託附設勒戒處所。
（二）、修正「有無繼續吸食毒品傾向」之評量表。

二、戒治處遇部分
（一）、戒治所應增加戒治所專業人力，落實醫療化、課程力求生動多樣、鼓勵家屬積極參與戒治活動、延聘志工、整合社會資源、提供就業轉銜服務，完成高危險個案之篩選及建檔，以達管理專業化之要求
（二）、宜修正「全民健康保險法」第三十九條之規定，將藥癮患者納入健保給付之範圍：毒癮愛滋應修法收治加強管理。
（三）、結合司法戒治與藥癮治療計畫，建立出所中途收容及轉介系統，落實追蹤輔導措施。
（四）、重視學術研究，奠定更具效益之戒治模式，妥適擬定「成效評估」、「高危險群篩選」之指標。
（五）、全面推廣本土化戒治處遇整合模式，並以三級預防戒治觀點勾勒未來戒治政策之藍圖。

● English Abstract:

     According to forensic statistics which announce by Ministry of Justice in December, 2005. That revealed the relapse rate of drug abuser was 70%. To cope with this, the researcher who also is the superintendent of Shin-Dian Drug Abuse Treatment Center, fighting the drugs as an important mission and responsibility.
     Nowadays, drug abuser treatment models which carry out in other countries are very different. We don’t have a best drug abuser treatment model now, we need to know what are the reasons for high relapse rate. The aspects of ordinance and reality must be review soon.
     This research stresses the effect of drug abuse treatment is relative to legal strategy, definition of patients, drug abuser treatment model, and the contact between correction institutions. In Theory, it is positive relationship, as the research find that if each part cooperated well, the relapse rate will decline, the effect of drug abuser treatment is good.
     This research use both quantity and quality methods. First, from macro angle to see the drug strategies and development processes. Second, from micro angle to review the design of “Drug Prevention and Control Act”. Through the questionnaire inventory、interviewing, to understand the opinions and advices of the staffs of Correction Reality and the drug abusers for important references of enhance.
     In quantity method, so many researches sampled drug abusers to be members. But their opinions were very different from the controllers. For example, drug abusers hopes the rehabilitation period could be shortened, and they like the rehabilitation place located in communities rather than in prisons. The effect of drug abuser treatment was relative to the environments of treatment. So, this research sampled 964 cases from drug abusers and controllers. Investigated their opinions to understand what they think about the drug strategies.
     In quality method, by interviewing experts and 11 superintendents of prison to confer their definitions about the patients of “Drug Prevention and Control Act”. I’d also like to know their opinions about that rehabilitation institutions and drug abuser treatment centers were working under one roof with prisons, what should Ministry of Justice and Department of Health do in the drug abuser treatment strategy, and if there any possibility to mend. Hope we can find out the suitable drug abuser treatment strategies for ordinance and reality as an referral for future drug abuser treatment business.
     This research through the collections of references, analysis of sampling questionnaires, and intensive quality interview, we find something new:
I. The reasons of high relapse rate: lack of entirely follow-up mechanisms of outpatients, no medical services were certainly included into the system of drug abuse treatment, and many of the drug abusers are prisons who didn’t accept any counseling or therapy in the prisons.
II. The relationship of Drug Abuse Treatment Programs and the abilities of social adjustment is highest.
III. There are some relationships between effect of drug abuse and arrangement of lessons, family attachment, stable job after treatments.
IV. There are many colleagues of Ministry of Justice think that drug abuse treatments are non-efficient, this attitude should be changed.
V. Drug Abusers can’t report in for duty and have their urine for tested on time after leaving the drug abuser centers, that make the follow-up more difficult; Therapeutic communities are worth to be popularized.
VI. The possibility of drug abusers who infect AIDS is very high, we don’t have any efficient methods to prevent.
VII. The reliability and validity of “Standard of continuing drug use” should be researched and corrected.
VIII. Methadone Maintain Therapy is worth to try, which should be diagnosis by Dr. and experts and doing something right.
IX. There aren’t any transference mechanisms after drug abusers leaving centers, this is the worst.
X. The evaluation of effect of drug abuse treatments should divided into three parts: theory, process, and effect.
     According to the research, we have some suggestions:
I. Observation rehabilitation:
（i）To increase the prescribed number of personnel of observation rehabilitation institutes, enhance the medical services and select some hospitals there.
（ii）Correct the questionnaire of “Tendency of continuing drug abuse”.
II. Drug Abuse Treatment:
（i）To increase the manpower of drug abuse treatment centers, to carry out medical services, to provide useful lessons, to encourage families of drug abusers entering the drug abuse treatment activities, to engage the service of volunteers, to integrate social resources, to provide job transferring services, to screen and build files up of high-risk drug abusers, and to manage professionally.
（ii）To correct the 39th line in “Law of National Health Insurance”, include the drug abusers into the system of National Health Insurance: AIDS drug abusers should be taken in and managed by law.
（iii）Combine forensic and medical drug abuse treatment plans, build half-way homes and transference systems, to carry out follow-up services.
（iv）Stresses academic research, build efficient drug abuse treatment models, plan suitable “evaluation of effect” and indexes of “high-risk screening”.
（v）To popularize localization drug abuse treatment models, and to sketch the future drug abuse treatment framework through third prevention.

● 文章連結：

 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/a5n3wb

● 資料來源：

臺灣碩博士論文知識加值系統