Reflections on the Predicament of Compulsory Detention through the Drug Classification System

The newly amended provisions of the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act were promulgated by the President on July 9, 2003, and took effect on January 9, 2004. The most significant aspects of the newly revised provisions are the contents of Articles 20 and 23 of the Act. The Act stipulates that, in addition to extending the period of observation and compulsory detention by two months, the treatment procedures for drug users should be simplified, distinguishing only between first-time offenders, repeat offenders within five years, and repeat offenders after five years. Under the old law, the detention period for first-time offenders was one month; if there was a tendency toward continued drug use, prosecutors could apply for a ruling of compulsory detention for one year. Under the new law, the observation and detention period is changed to a maximum of no more than two months; if there is still a tendency toward continued use, prosecutors may also apply for a ruling of compulsory detention for not less than six months and not more than six months at most, while deleting the provisions for protective supervision during compulsory treatment and the extension of compulsory treatment.

Following the implementation of the new law, the observation and detention period for first-time offenders has been extended to a maximum of two months, which is longer than the previous one-month period, and situations like the very brief detentions of William So (蘇永康) and "Little Dragon Girl" (小龍女) will no longer occur. In addition, under the newly revised Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act, second-time offenders must be prosecuted, and those who commit an offense under Article 10 again within five years may be prosecuted by prosecutors or ruled to be delivered for trial in accordance with the law.

Lack of Knowledge Leads to Policy Failure

Superficially, this legal amendment regards first-time users of illicit drugs as patients, helping them escape the harm of drugs through observation and detention. However, if one delves deeply into the long-term formulation direction of Taiwan's drug policy and laws, it becomes apparent that the Taiwanese government lacks knowledge regarding these controlled substances, and this lack of knowledge has led to the government's failure in policies concerning such drugs. The government's anti-drug policy actually reflects its unfamiliarity with the characteristics of different types of drugs, as well as a long-standing model that relies solely on containment and crackdowns to prevent deviant behavior. From the drug classifications in the Controlled Drugs Act and the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act changing from three tiers to four, with the categories increasing as the types of drug use grow, it is evident that the Taiwanese government actually has no clue which drugs should be classified into different positions or which substances can be moderately liberalized, knowing only to blindly add to the items subject to control.

Controlled Substances / Narcotics?!

To give a simple example, Taiwan has the Controlled Drugs Control Act and also the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act. A careful examination of the drug items in both acts reveals that the vast majority of substances overlap. The point to be made here is that Taiwan currently cannot effectively distinguish or explain why the same substance is both a controlled drug and simultaneously listed as a narcotic. The government has a gray area in how it defines the distinction between narcotics and controlled drugs. Under current law, the Controlled Drugs Control Act is primarily targeted at regulations for use by medical or research personnel. Under such regulations, only specific personnel can obtain controlled substances that are considered narcotics. However, with so many overlapping drug classifications between the two acts, a paradoxical phenomenon arises. If members of the public legally obtain controlled drugs prescribed by a doctor at a hospital—such as cold syrup containing codeine—through long-term use that reaches the point of addiction, should this ultimately be considered a form of drug abuse?

Returning to the current wave of anti-drug policies in Taiwan, the drugs targeted in this wave are none other than ecstasy, cannabis, LSD, ketamine, and others. Taiwan's approach to treating users of these drugs is no different from that for other drug offenders: they are all sent to detention centers for so-called observation and detention until they no longer show a tendency to use again. However, users of these types of substances do not exhibit withdrawal symptoms like those who inject heroin or consume cocaine, nor do they possess the violent tendencies that amphetamines may trigger. Putting these individuals in one place for detention does not actually hold much significance.

Foreign countries distinguish between soft drugs and hard drugs in relation to narcotics. The biggest distinction is based on the physiological response, effects, and tolerance of the human body to the substance. The biggest difference between soft drugs and hard drugs lies in human tolerance, which is the difference in addictiveness. Most people do not have physiological addiction problems when using soft drugs, nor do they experience physiological withdrawal symptoms after addiction. Beneath the broad overarching term of narcotics, there are still different classifications, and different classifications naturally have different characteristics; different classification methods certainly have their generated significance. When we ignore the categorization of different types and overlook their differences, it represents a waste of social costs for the state.

Different symptoms call for different treatment approaches. For soft drug users, they do not have physiological addiction problems, and conducting so-called isolation is of little use to them. What they truly need is to resolve psychological addiction issues through counseling mechanisms. Regardless of the type of drug user, if there is no behavior harming others, it should belong to a victimless crime, which refers to illegal activities voluntarily engaged in by individuals that do not infringe upon the rights and interests of others, such as drug use, prostitution, pornography, gambling, and other behaviors (Chou Su-hsien, 1999). If we advocate even more proactively, the best way to resolve victimless crimes should be decriminalization, allowing them to return to the social sphere and find points of integration based on their different characteristics. For example, drug use should be viewed as an illness, addressing their psychological dependence on various substances through medical means.

Unable to Control the People's Fear

However, behind Taiwan's anti-drug policy actually lies the state apparatus's fear of being unable to control the people after they use drugs; the fear that the people will become uncontrollable, and the worry that young people will idle away their days instead of engaging in production, shaking the foundations of the state. A deeper examination of public policies on anti-drug efforts in Taiwan during different periods reveals more clearly the government's thinking context regarding anti-drug efforts. Amphetamine use has long existed in Taiwan, but because it was mostly consumed by lower-class youths or workers, it did not attract societal attention. However, since the mid-1980s, middle-class youths also began consuming it due to the burdens of part-time work or studies, and thus it began to turn into a social issue valued by officials, schools, and middle-class parents (Kavipelago, 1996). Furthermore, this wave of the rise of soft drugs has broken through past class restrictions, entering all strata of society—from youths and the middle class, from *taike* and gangsters to office workers, reporters, and professors. Youths enjoy bodily pleasure within drugs to resist social discipline, while the social elites plunging into the delirium of drug use further create societal worries about a potential decline in productivity. This is the state's panic in the face of ordinary citizens developing bodily recreation that might spiral out of control, and such delirious hedonism actually encompassees all strata of society, naturally arousing a high degree of panic in the state and causing it to go all out to suppress it.

The controversy surrounding the use of such soft drugs remains substantial in Taiwan. In the short term, the first thing the Taiwanese government must do is re-examine the current classification of drugs and narcotics. Continuing to categorize various substances with only a superficial understanding of them will not be of much help to the current situation. The government should first clarify the various types of substances and provide the public with accurate knowledge about them, and then arrange detention treatments according to different categories. In the future, the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act should move even further toward the direction of decriminalization for reform, and implement a classified opening of certain soft drugs within limits. History has proven that if many things are blindly contained, the goal of effective management cannot be achieved at all; a high degree of suppression will only make the people run counter to expectations, and will also cause the government to invest excessive social costs in the detention treatment of soft drug users without achieving results.