本文從施用毒品罪，尤其是「戒癮」處遇之立法觀察分析，其規定在「毒品危 害防制條例」第20、23條與第24條之「附命完成戒癮治療之緩起訴」，特別是第 24 條在立法當時就已有許多爭議，立法以後，以美沙冬替代療法「治療」第一級 施用毒品者，助其戒癮，至於成效如何？尚待觀察。立法之主要的問題在於如何戒 癮（觀察、勒戒加上強制戒治；替代療法）始為有效？再者，本文探討修正毒品危 害防制條例第24 條，所帶來的實務爭議（主要是撤銷緩起訴後的問題），俾供實 務參考。

This paper primarily investigated deferred prosecution of drug use offence based on Articles 20, 23, and 24 of "Statute for Narcotics Hazard Control" regarding regulations of deferred prosecution for demanded/compulsory drug abstention and treatment, particularly observing and analyzing how drug abstention was dealt with. Article 24 especially had led to many controversial arguments when stipulated. After it was passed, methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) substituted treatment for the first-phase drug users, helping them abstain from drug use. Its effectiveness is still under observation and evaluation. Its major legislative problems are derived from how to effectively abstain from drug (observation, abstention compulsory abstention; substitute treatment). This paper also explored practice disputes (mainly coming after deferred prosecution) resulting from revised Article 24 of Statute for Narcotics Hazard Control and hopes to provide practice references.