毒品的存在由來已久，近年在生活壓力漸增下，毒品濫用的問題愈演愈烈，此可見諸於我國吸毒入監人數以及毒品吸食的再犯率屢創新高。政府為了抑制社會毒品濫用的問題，減少犯罪與社會危害，遂推動地方毒品危害防制中心的政策措施，希望能結合政府與民間的資源與力量，共同進行反毒作戰。為了對此政策的形成與運作有更深入的了解，本研究以現有反毒文獻較缺乏的政策執行過程面向切入，運用政策網絡縱貫面的觀察架構，輔以橫切面的要素分析，並透過深度訪談與次級資料分析，企圖了解地方毒品危害防制中心的互動結構與關係發展的過程。 本研究發現該政策主要是植基於應急式的反毒政策推動，為了因應漸趨嚴重的毒品問題，政府採取運用現有的組織資源方式來做政策推動，在此資源侷限下，主責的中央政府官員採取建立網絡、遊說指導策略，主責的地方政府官員則採取尋找資源的策略，在其策略運用的過程之中，中央與地方的毒品防制網絡漸趨形成。雖然該網絡的形成是地方毒品危害防制中心政策的最主要貢獻，但是系絡的資源困境仍阻礙反毒網絡的發展與持續深化。從任務編組的人員配置到反毒業務的金額補助有限，不只使主責 的單位面臨難以負荷的問題，也使網絡中的其他行動者傾向被動 配合，沿襲舊有的反毒政策推動內涵，實際產生的政策變革有 限，組織間的連結也呈現弱連結型態。除此之外，在地方反毒網 絡的擴展與反毒醫療、輔導信念的執行過程中，主責的中心人員 也面臨吸毒犯心理依賴強烈與病識感不足的困境，前者所導致的 高再犯率使得民間資源普遍投入的意願不高，後者則為吸毒者配 合意願不高讓政府的輔導措施面臨難以推動的困境。上述的困境 使得地方毒品危害防制中心的現行運作面臨發展的侷限，本研究 基於此運作的實際情況與問題的了解，嘗試提出改善的短、中、 長期政策建議。

Drug abuse have existed for a long time. Recently, due to the escalating stress of life, drug abuse problems have become a much more serious social problem. Both the growing number of people being sent to jail for drug abuse and the high percentage of people retaking drugs are evidence in this trend. In order to tackle this problem, our government has set up the locally government controlled Drug Abuse Control Center. Through this organization, it is hoped that government and non-governmental organizations can work together to prevent drug abuse and crime. By using policy network analysis and in-depth interviews, this research tries to understand the interaction between structure and policy implementation of the local Drug Abuse Control Center. This study found that the policy is mainly an emergency-type of anti-drug policy. The central and local government officials are taking action to cope with serious drug problem respectively. On the part of the central government, the Ministry of Justice has carried out strategies of lobbing, guidance and constructing a network under the constraints of limited resources. On the part of local governments, the local Drug Abuse Control Center’s strategy is to find outside resources and cooperate with other parts of the local governments and civil society. Accordingly, both a central and local drug abuse control network has gradually formed. The most important contribution under the local Drug Abuse Control Center’s policy implementation is the formation of a central and local drug abuse control network. We conclude that resource dilemma in the context, staffing in the task force, limited assistance from anti-drug operation, and weak ties between organizations have hindered the local Drug Abuse Control Center’s network development and persistent unfolding. In addition, the drug user groups’ lack of awareness of their disease and their strong psychological dependence have made policy implementation even more difficult. Finally, we propose several short-term, mid-term and long-term policy recommendations to improve implementation.