我國施用毒品管制政策之研究

Abstract

摘 要\n我國毒品區分為四個級別。對於製造、運輸、販賣毒品行為，｢毒品危害防制條例」明文規定為犯罪行為；而施用毒品行為，施用第一、二級毒品為刑事處罰，施用第三、四級毒品為行政處罰。何以同屬施用毒品行為卻有不同法律效果？國家又該如何管制施用毒品行為，方為妥適之道？\n本論文從國家管制施用毒品法律制度之演變、施用毒品行為保護法益之思辨，論證並非所有施用毒品行為均有刑法可罰性。國家管制施用毒品行為，應探究施用毒品之不同情狀，而為適切之處遇，並以預防、輔導、治療、減害、減少再犯施用為處遇目標，而非處罰，但處罰仍有需要並為相關處遇之後盾。\n刑法介入管制施用毒品行為，應以施用毒品而達成癮，並具危害他人及社會法益之高度風險，且自我意志較無遵守法律規範之可能，此時依德國刑法學者亞圖．考夫曼（Arthur Kaufmann）｢輔助性原則」（Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip）精神，方能有刑法介入管制之空間；其餘之施用毒品行為應優先以行政處遇為之。當刑法介入管制施用毒品成而具成癮性之情狀時，也應依循亞圖．考夫曼所提｢寬容原則」（Das Prinzip Tolerane），以保安處分做為刑法之法律效果，並優先以｢非拘束人身自由」之保安處分為之，再依其施用毒品成癮之情狀，層升為｢拘束人身自由」之保安處分。\n換言之，國家管制施用毒品行為，係依據施用者之成癮危險程度之輕重，由行政處罰漸次提升至刑事處罰，而刑事處罰又優先以｢非拘束人身自由」之保安處分為之，再漸次層升為｢拘束人身自由」之保安處分。揚棄現行｢毒品危害防制條例」以刑罰處罰施用第一、二級毒品，以行政罰處罰施用第三、四級毒品之規範，並打破依毒品分級所建構之管制制度，建立以成癮之危險程度之行政罰與刑事罰並存之管制新制度。

Abstract\nThe drug classification has four categories in Taiwan. According the regulations of The Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act, the conducts of manufacturing, transporting, or selling narcotics constitute crimes. The actions of using narcotics of Category one or two would be sentenced to criminal penalties. While using narcotics of Category three or four shall be blamed administrative punishments. Why the conducts of using Narcotics are the same, but the legal effects are different? What appropriate measures can the Government take to control the using narcotics?\n\nIn this essay, I will point of views from the historic development of the national legal systems about controlling the using narcotics, and the deliberation of what kind of legal interests regarding the prohibition of using narcotics. Here I make argument that not all using narcotics acts should be punished under criminal law. When government want to control the acts of using narcotics, should the government probe the differences among the using narcotics acts, and execute relevant appropriate measures such as prevention, counseling, treatment, harm-reduction rather than the punishments. However, the punishment would be the support.\n\nOnly when the perpetrator is addicted by using narcotics, then he is with a high risk of harm to others and the legal interests of society, and regarding his self-will he might not comply with the legal norms. According to Arthur Kaufmann’s theory about the subsidiarity principle, then the government could intervene controlling the acts of using narcotics by the criminal laws. The blame of other using narcotics acts\nshould be administrative measures prior to criminal penalty. When we use the criminal laws to control the addicted perpetrator, applying the tolerance principle, the Rehabilitative Measure should be the sentenced legal effect of the criminal laws. The rehabilitative measure without detention is prior to the one of physical detention, unless the addicted condition of using narcotics increased.\n\nThat is, the measures of controlling using narcotics depends on the severity of addiction and the danger to the society, that differs from the administrative punishments to criminal penalties. And the way of sanctions since the rehabilitative measure of non-detention of physical freedom stepwise to the detention rehabilitative measure by evaluating the extent of one’s addiction and danger to the society. The present programming of the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act should be deserted, which set the criminal penalties for using narcotics of the Category one or two, and stipulate administrative punishments for using narcotics of the Category three or four. The control system which depends on the classification of narcotics by Categories also should be smashed. The new system of controlling narcotics should provide the legal effects both administrative punishment in parallel with criminal penalty by checking the extent of addiction risk.\n\nKeywords: Prevention and Control of Narcotics, addiction, Arthur Kaufmann, the principle of subsidiarity, the principle of Tolerance, the Rehabilitative measure