- 學位論文
台灣有效管理新興影響精神物質之立法機制研究
Study on the legislative mechanism for effective management of new psychoactive substances in Taiwan
摘要
非法物質使用長期以來一直是世界各國嚴重的問題，但在傳統毒品如海洛因、古柯鹼和大麻所產生的問題尚未解決之際，近年來隨著社會型態的變遷，化學合成知識的進展，加以資訊的快速流通，已經促使新興影響精神物質(又稱新興毒品，New psychoactive substances, NPS)不斷出現，對全球公共衛生和安全造成威脅。自1961年以來，聯合國的三項禁毒公約一直為會員國控制非法物質問題的義務和國際合作的管理基礎。但是到目前為止，關於NPS管理的立法機制尚未有國際共識。我國於1971年即退出聯合國，致使之後二十餘年與國際反毒公約脫節，直到1998年修訂毒品危害防制條例、1999年修訂管制藥品管理條例，對非法物質品項予以增列並分級管理，始與聯合國三個反毒公約之管理同步。惟近年來NPS所造成之公共衛生與社會問題已不容小覷，建立有效管理NPS相關之立法機制乃當務之急。為了能在實證基礎上訂定毒品政策，我們必須瞭解NPS之發展趨勢、濫用方式以及相關法規。針對NPS之相關研究，在西方國家已有不少研究探討，但在亞洲地區相對較少。因此，本研究旨在比較我國、韓國和日本三個國家之間有關NPS控制的立法機制與內容。研究結果發現，儘管我國與韓國和日本二國之地理位置接近，對NPS使用的管理態度亦具有相似性，然其NPS之立法標準和應對措施截然不同。韓國自2011年起實施臨時麻醉品指定系統和類似物控制措施，日本頒布了經修訂的《指定藥品》法規和《危險藥品》法規，我國仍未對NPS進行相關立法或規範，NPS列管之品項亦遠低於日韓二國。韓國和日本的立法方法允許迅速實施管理NPS，得以及時進行監管；然我國謹慎嚴謹的立法態度似乎阻礙了及時監管的機制。希望本研究之結果，能給予我國相關政府機關於NPS之管制立法上有所參考，以減少及防止NPS造成的危害。
並列摘要
Illegal substance use has been a serious issue for a long time globally. Recently, while the problems associated with traditional drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis still linger, new synthetic drugs, coined by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime as New Psychoactive Substances (NPS), have become a new threat worldwide due to dynamic societal change, progress of knowledge in synthetic chemistry and rapid communication and information spread.. Since 1961, the three United Nations anti-drug conventions have served as the basis for regulations of member states’ obligations and international cooperation to control the problems of illegal substances. However, there is no international consensus on legislative control of NPS so far. In Taiwan, the drug legislations had not been in line with the International Anti-Drug Conventions since 1971, the year Taiwan was excluded from the membership of the United Nations. Therefore, for more than 20 years they were not harmonized with the international conventions until the Statute for Narcotics Hazard Control, and Controlled Substances Act were modified in 1998 and 1999, respectively. However, the problems caused by NPS should not be underestimated and it is an urgent priority to develop a legislative mechanism on NPS scheduling. In order to conduct evidence-based drug policy, it is imperative to estimate the trend, the pattern of NPS use, and the associative legislations. Our research aims to compare the legislations on NPS control between three Asian countries including Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. We found the legislative criteria and responses for NPS controls in these three countries were extremely distinct despite the geographic proximity and similar legal attitudes toward illegal substance use. The diversity in the number of controlled NPS items might be due to the implementation of temporary narcotic designation systems and analogue controls on NPS since 2011 in South Korea, and the promulgation of designated drug regulation and subsequent control of “dangerous drugs” by the revised Pharmaceutical Affairs Law in Japan. By contrast, we have not yet stipulated any laws to manage NPS. The legislative approaches in South Korea and Japan allow timely monitoring of NPSs, prompt implementation of listing NPSs as illegal drugs, and systematic regulation of NPSs. However, Taiwan’s cautious approach appears to hinder timely regulation. We hope our research outcomes could provide our government a legislative reference on NPS control and management to minimize and prevent the hazards caused from NPS.