緩起訴附命完成二級毒品戒癮治療之地方實作與規劃變遷歷程考察

Abstract

本文藉由訪談及檔案分析，檢視二級毒品緩起訴附命完成戒癮治療，其制度發展背景、在特定地方的實作制定變遷歷程（2008–2018 年）及實作內容，並嘗試回答影響其變遷的各項因素。本文的研究發現包括以下數點：首先，吸毒者處遇中「治療」與「司法」兩種邏輯透過「病犯」這樣論述裝置得以分配比例，並在二級毒品緩起訴附命戒癮治療核心的「酬賞原則」中相互合作。其次，個別行動者仍然會大幅受限自己的關係與能連結的資源，跟其他行動者偶緣地組合成政策或實作的拼裝體，而成癮領域直至 2018 年尚未成為建制化而受特定行動者壟斷領域，使得各方行動者皆能進入，選擇性取用知識並打造在地處遇方案。最後，毒品戒癮治療透過「試辦」及在地行動者拼裝，縱使國家治理能力有限，各地也能發展出異質的處遇，但同時也使得不同地區的處遇成果難以比較、模式難以直接移植。本文的政策建議是，只有在更細緻並質性地理解各地實作現場及其發展的歷程與條件，才能抽取出模組化的政策選項模組，並闡明各模組之所以能運作背後的資源連結與歷史條件，使其變成啟發性的典範而非固定的選項，俾使各地根據自己的處境跟資源限制，引入並改造成自己的新實作。

By textual analysis on archives and other materials, and interviews with practioners and drug users, I examine the background of insitution development, with the establishment, changing process (2008–2018) and content of local practice, on the schedule II drug rehabilitation treatment program during the deferred prosecution, therefore attempt to demonstrate possible factors affecting the changing of the program. Three arguments can be drawn from the findings. First, there are “remedy” and the “justice” logics in the drug user treatments, and ratio of these two logics can be distributed and adjusted via the “patient-offender” construction as a discursive apparatus; and these two logics work in concert in the “contingency management”, the core principle of the schedule II drug rehabilitation treatment program. Second, individual actors are largely limited by their relationships with other actors and resources, thus contingently form assemblages of policy and practice, along with other actors; the field of addiction intervention, until 2018, hadn’t been institutionalized and monopolized by any specific actors, therefore different actors could enter this field, selectively introduce different knowledges and construct local treatment programs. Finally, although the governing capacity of the state is limited, by “policy pilot programs” and assemblages by local actors, heterogenous drug rehabilitation treatment programs could be developed across regions; however, this heterogeneity also make the comparison and the direct transplant of other programs into different regions infeasible. My policy suggestion is that, only thorough delicate and qualitative understanding of every site of local practices, the changing process and its conditions of such practices, could policy makers abstract modular policy options; by clearly elucidation of historical conditions and available resources behind these modular options, and make such options as illuminating paradigms (but not as fixed options), all local actors might introduce and adapt these modular policy options into new local practices.