:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:我國毒品戒治政策與成效之研究
作者:張伯宏
作者(外文):Bor-horng Jang
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:犯罪防治所
指導教授:楊士隆
蔡德輝
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2007
主題關鍵詞:毒品戒治政策戒治模式戒治成效drugstrategies of drug abuse treatmentdrug abuse treatment modelseffects of drug abuse treatment
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(11) 博士論文(7) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:10
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:35
依據法務部2005年12月公佈之法務統計摘要顯示毒品再犯率竟高達70%,面對如此高之再犯比率,研究者因時任戒治所所長之職,責無旁貸銜命從事立法及實務之深入暸解與檢討。
目前世界各國所實施之戒毒模式差異性極大,實頗具爭議。而我國目前尚未建立一套最佳之戒毒模式,面對如此高之再犯率,到底係何階段?何區塊?發生偏差所致,亟待暸解。當務之急即應進行法令層面與實務執行層面徹底進行總檢討,找出原因並謀求改進。
本研究基本認為戒毒成效與執行立法刑事政策、對毒品犯之及對其實施之戒毒模式與方法、各司法矯正機關彼此業務連繫,有無執行介面?以及各戒毒實務機關對毒品犯實施之各項戒毒矯正處遇措施是否妥適?有無落實執行法令規定?以及戒治出所後之社會適應性有關。理論上如彼此屬於正相關之關係,如發現前揭各區塊運做妥適良好,則再犯率一定偏低,反之即再犯率相對提高,代表戒毒無效,立待改善。
本研究採取量化與質性並行之研究方式,首先從鉅觀面之角度檢視世界各國之毒品政策及發展歷程以及我國毒品政策之沿革及脈絡,再從微觀面之立場,深入檢討毒品危害防制條例之立法規劃與設計,透過問卷調查、深度訪談之方式,暸解司法矯正實務從業人員及受戒治人對現今法令規定暨實務運作之意見與看法,俾作為改進業務之重要參考。
量化方面,鑒於過去釵h實證研究之取樣,均以毒品犯為主要研究對象,根據研究者實務經驗以及前述釵h之研究發現,毒品犯之意見與管教人員之看法南轅北轍。例如毒品施用者希望戒治期程愈短愈好,甚至不要機構戒治改由社區處遇戒治,如此之意見並無法反應政策之良窳。惟由於國家之戒毒政策係以毒品施用者為實體,其成效之良窳與受戒治人對戒治流程中之軟硬體之設備,環境之看法及配合度,有密不可分之關係。因此,本研究從實際參與毒品戒治業務之受戒治人及第一線司法執法人員(實際接觸毒品戒治業務之院、檢司法人員與矯正人員)為研究之對象抽樣964件,調查分析其意見,俾能深入了解當前毒品戒治政策之意見與看法,以進一步提出改進之對策。
質性訪談部分,則訪問完整歷經立法過程之專家學者暨矯正實務機關之首長11位,探討其對毒品危害防制條例中規定毒品犯之定位,對觀察勒戒所、戒治所分別附設於看守所、監獄之作法以及法務部、行政院衛生署於整體毒品戒治政策中應扮演之角色,以及是否有修法改善之空間等問題,期能彙整分析其意見,研擬出適合我國現行立法與實務相宜之戒毒方針,供司法當局作為日後推動毒品戒治業務之參考。
本研究經過文獻之收集及抽樣之問卷調查分析、深度質性訪談之結果,彙整研究發現如次:
一、再犯率偏高之原因包括:出所後缺乏完善之追蹤輔導機制、衛生醫療區塊一直沒有落實進入戒治體系、大多數之之吸毒犯為受刑人、在監獄中未有接受任何戒毒相關之輔導或治療。
二、戒治處遇計畫與社會適應力之間之相關程度最高。
三、戒治成效與課程安排、家庭附著力及出所後是否有穩定之工作有關。
四、有甚高比例之司法同仁認為戒治無效論,宜設法改正。
五、受戒治人出所後均未能按時報到驗尿,致無法追蹤監控,治療性社區值得推廣。
六、毒品施用者出所後感染愛滋病之可能性仍甚高,無法有效防止愛滋病之感染。
七、有無毒品吸食傾向之標準表,應針對其信度及效度加以研究修正。
八、替代療法值得一試,應由醫師診斷,並由對毒品有研究之專家組成團隊,做適切之處遇。
九、毒品犯離所後,未有任何轉型及過渡之機制,此乃最隱憂之所
在。
十、毒品戒治成效之評估應分為理論、過程與成效三分面加以進行。
根據前揭之研究發現乃提出具體建議如次:
一、觀察勒戒部分
(一)、擴增勒戒處所員額編制、加強勒戒處所醫療支援業
務,選擇部份醫療院所試辦委託附設勒戒處所。
(二)、修正「有無繼續吸食毒品傾向」之評量表。
二、戒治處遇部分
(一)、戒治所應增加戒治所專業人力,落實醫療化、課程力求生動多樣、鼓勵家屬積極參與戒治活動、延聘志工、整合社會資源、提供就業轉銜服務,完成高危險個案之篩選及建檔,以達管理專業化之要求
(二)、宜修正「全民健康保險法」第三十九條之規定,將藥癮患者納入健保給付之範圍:毒癮愛滋應修法收治加強管理。
(三)、結合司法戒治與藥癮治療計畫,建立出所中途收容及轉介系統,落實追蹤輔導措施。
(四)、重視學術研究,奠定更具效益之戒治模式,妥適擬定「成效評估」、「高危險群篩選」之指標。
(五)、全面推廣本土化戒治處遇整合模式,並以三級預防戒治觀點勾勒未來戒治政策之藍圖。
Abstract
According to forensic statistics which announce by Ministry of Justice in December, 2005. That revealed the relapse rate of drug abuser was 70%. To cope with this, the researcher who also is the superintendent of Shin-Dian Drug Abuse Treatment Center, fighting the drugs as an important mission and responsibility.
Nowadays, drug abuser treatment models which carry out in other countries are very different. We don’t have a best drug abuser treatment model now, we need to know what are the reasons for high relapse rate. The aspects of ordinance and reality must be review soon.
This research stresses the effect of drug abuse treatment is relative to legal strategy, definition of patients, drug abuser treatment model, and the contact between correction institutions. In Theory, it is positive relationship, as the research find that if each part cooperated well, the relapse rate will decline, the effect of drug abuser treatment is good.
This research use both quantity and quality methods. First, from macro angle to see the drug strategies and development processes. Second, from micro angle to review the design of “Drug Prevention and Control Act”. Through the questionnaire inventory、interviewing, to understand the opinions and advices of the staffs of Correction Reality and the drug abusers for important references of enhance.
In quantity method, so many researches sampled drug abusers to be members. But their opinions were very different from the controllers. For example, drug abusers hopes the rehabilitation period could be shortened, and they like the rehabilitation place located in communities rather than in prisons. The effect of drug abuser treatment was relative to the environments of treatment. So, this research sampled 964 cases from drug abusers and controllers. Investigated their opinions to understand what they think about the drug strategies.
In quality method, by interviewing experts and 11 superintendents of prison to confer their definitions about the patients of “Drug Prevention and Control Act”. I’d also like to know their opinions about that rehabilitation institutions and drug abuser treatment centers were working under one roof with prisons, what should Ministry of Justice and Department of Health do in the drug abuser treatment strategy, and if there any possibility to mend. Hope we can find out the suitable drug abuser treatment strategies for ordinance and reality as an referral for future drug abuser treatment business.
This research through the collections of references, analysis of sampling questionnaires, and intensive quality interview, we find something new:
I. The reasons of high relapse rate: lack of entirely follow-up mechanisms of outpatients, no medical services were certainly included into the system of drug abuse treatment, and many of the drug abusers are prisons who didn’t accept any counseling or therapy in the prisons.
II. The relationship of Drug Abuse Treatment Programs and the abilities of social adjustment is highest.
III. There are some relationships between effect of drug abuse and arrangement of lessons, family attachment, stable job after treatments.
IV. There are many colleagues of Ministry of Justice think that drug abuse treatments are non-efficient, this attitude should be changed.
V. Drug Abusers can’t report in for duty and have their urine for tested on time after leaving the drug abuser centers, that make the follow-up more difficult; Therapeutic communities are worth to be popularized.
VI. The possibility of drug abusers who infect AIDS is very high, we don’t have any efficient methods to prevent.
VII. The reliability and validity of “Standard of continuing drug use” should be researched and corrected.
VIII. Methadone Maintain Therapy is worth to try, which should be diagnosis by Dr. and experts and doing something right.
IX. There aren’t any transference mechanisms after drug abusers leaving centers, this is the worst.
X. The evaluation of effect of drug abuse treatments should divided into three parts: theory, process, and effect.
According to the research, we have some suggestions:
I. Observation rehabilitation:
(i)To increase the prescribed number of personnel of observation rehabilitation institutes, enhance the medical services and select some hospitals there.
(ii)Correct the questionnaire of “Tendency of continuing drug abuse”.
II. Drug Abuse Treatment:
(i)To increase the manpower of drug abuse treatment centers, to carry out medical services, to provide useful lessons, to encourage families of drug abusers entering the drug abuse treatment activities, to engage the service of volunteers, to integrate social resources, to provide job transferring services, to screen and build files up of high-risk drug abusers, and to manage professionally.
(ii)To correct the 39th line in “Law of National Health Insurance”, include the drug abusers into the system of National Health Insurance: AIDS drug abusers should be taken in and managed by law.
(iii)Combine forensic and medical drug abuse treatment plans, build half-way homes and transference systems, to carry out follow-up services.
(iv)Stresses academic research, build efficient drug abuse treatment models, plan suitable “evaluation of effect” and indexes of “high-risk screening”.
(v)To popularize localization drug abuse treatment models, and to sketch the future drug abuse treatment framework through third prevention.
參考書目:
壹、中文部分
中野目善則(2002):21世紀亞太地區暴力犯罪與對策研討會論文集301頁。
王媄慧(2004):問題解決模式對毒品受戒治人出所計畫之影響一以臺中戒治所為例。東海大學社會工作學系碩士班碩士論文10~12頁。
立法院(1994):立法院公報第83卷第83期委員會記錄。台北:立法院秘書處。
立法院(1995):立法院公報第84卷第65期院會記錄。台北:立法院秘書處。
任全鈞(2001):藥物濫用者之處遇…美國聯邦監獄局之經驗。http://www.tpt.moj.gov.tw/c200/VOL 2 52.html。
朱慶葆、蔣秋明、張世杰(1995):鴉片與近代中國。南京:江蘇教育出版社。
江振亨(2000):國外藥物濫用者藥癮矯治模式之分析。矯正月刊第96期。
江振亨(2005):認知取向戒治策略對安非他命濫用者之戒治成效研究。嘉義:國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所,2005年犯罪矯治國際研討會論文集87~105。new window
行政院衛生署、法務部、教育部(2001):2001年反毒報告書一月至十二月。臺北:行政院衛生署、法務部、教育部。
行政院衛生署、法務部、教育部(2002):2002年反毒報告書一月至十二月。臺北:行政院衛生署、法務部、教育部。
行政院衛生署、法務部、教育部(2003):2003年反毒報告書一月至十二月。臺北:行政院衛生署、法務部、教育部。
行政院衛生署管制藥品管理局(2002):藥物濫用-藥物濫用之防治、危害戒治。
余漢儀(2003):毒品政策對施用毒品者之影響一以成年男性戒治所為例。國立臺灣大學社會工作學系碩士論文1~3頁。
吳就君(1997):藥癮者醫療戒治計畫方案-凱旋戒治模式之標準化與評估。行政院衛生署精神醫療保健研究計畫研究報告。
李希慧(1993):毒品犯罪研究。趙秉志主編,李希慧副主編。北京:中國人民大學出版社。
李志恆(1994):「美沙酮治療鴉片類成癮之成效考察報告」。行政院衛生署82年因公出國人員報告彙編。台北:行政院衛生署。
李志恆(1994):「麻醉藥品及影響精神藥品監視之研習報告」。行政院衛生署82年因公出國人員報告彙編。台北:行政院衛生署。
李志恆(1995):「赴瑞典、荷蘭、比利時考察麻醉藥品管理及藥物濫用防制現況報告」,行政院衛生署84年因公出國人員報告彙編。台北:行政院衛生署。
李志恆(1996):「考察英國、法國、德國麻醉藥品及影響精神藥品使用之管理報告」,行政院衛生署85年因公出國人員報告彙編。台北:行政院衛生署。
李志恆(1996):「赴東南亞鄰近地區考察麻醉藥品管理及藥物濫用防制政策之制度及行報告」,行政院衛生署84年因公出國人員報告彙編。台北:行政院衛生署。
李志恆(1997):濫用藥物之在監費用與醫療費用比較分析-行政院衛生署1999年度委託研究計畫,台北:行政院衛生署麻經處。
李志恆(1997):「赴澳洲參加第七屆減少毒品相關傷害國際研討會暨考察英國、法國、德國麻醉藥品及影響精神藥品使用之管理報告」,行政院衛生署85年因公出國人員報告彙編。台北:行政院衛生署。
李志恆(2005):赴北愛爾蘭貝爾法斯特參加「第十六屆國際減少毒品相關傷害會議」報告,台北:行政院衛生署管制藥品管理局。
李志恆、張國清(1999):「泰國藥物濫用防治政策與現況考察報告」,行政院衛生署麻醉藥品管理處。
李信良(2005):藥物濫用者青少年的心理、人格和學校環境之間的關係(II)-後設分析。中央警察大學警學叢刊第三十五卷第五期181~195頁。new window
汪志皇(2005):藥物濫用者藥物濫用及再犯系因之探討。中央警察大學警學叢刊第三十五卷第六期257~272頁。new window
林山田(2001):刑法的革新。臺北市:學林文化事業有限公司133~135頁。new window
林佳璋、駱宜安(2004):藥物濫用行為之分析。桃園:中央警察大學警學叢刊第三十五卷第三期 1~18頁。new window
林建陽、陳玉書、柯雨瑞(2003):毒品犯罪戒治成效影響因素之追蹤研究,2003年犯罪矯正與觀護研討會133~145頁。new window
林茂榮、楊士隆(2006):監獄學、犯罪矯正原理與實務。台北,五南。new window
林健陽 楊士隆(2001):犯罪矯治一問題與對策。臺北:五南圓書出版詞。
林健陽、柯雨瑞(2001):毒品犯罪與防治。桃園:中央警察大學出版社。
林健陽、柯與瑞(2000):毒品犯罪化及其對「犯罪矯治」之影響,中央警察大學犯罪防治學報第一期。桃園:中央警察大學犯罪防治研究所。
林健陽、賴擁連(2002):臺灣地區毒品犯戒治處遇效能之實證研究,公共事務評論 第三卷 第一期。new window
法務部(1999):毒品危害防制條例參考資料彙編。臺北市,法務部。
法務部(2003):法務部公報,第三0九期。臺北市,法務部。
法務部(2005):法務統計摘要。臺北市法務部。
侯博仁(1996):兩岸毒品犯罪之比較研究。國防管理學院法律學研究所碩士論文。
張忠龍(2002):海峽兩岸犯罪問題之研究-以打擊毒品犯罪為例,私立淡江大學大陸研究所碩士論文43~44頁。
張智雄、柯雨瑞(2005):毒品強制戒治處遇成效與再犯影響之研究。臺北市:更生保護實務與犯罪矯正學術研討會論文集131~179頁。new window
郭文正(2003):點一盞燈照亮康復之路~「專業處遇後之再犯率調查」暨「復發因素探討研究」,臺灣臺北戒治所自行研究計畫。桃園:臺灣臺北監獄。
郭文正(2004):藥物濫用與共依附現象之相關研究,臺灣臺北戒治所自行研究計畫。桃園:臺灣臺北監獄。
陳明筆(2004):毒品受戒治人副文化之質性研究:以臺灣臺中戒治所為例。嘉義:國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文。
陳家雯、李靜宜、洪嘉璣、郭文正、陳妙平、黃健、蔡慧民(2003):關於戒治所~來自實務工作者德建議。矯正月刊,138,5~8。桃園:法務部矯正人員訓練所。
陳祖輝(2003):毒品犯罪戒治處遇成效概況之介紹。犯罪學期刊 第六卷 第一期 229~254頁。new window
陳快樂(2006):新店戒治所醫療整合成果報告,2006年藥癮戒治醫療研討會。行政院衛生署、法務部。桃園:桃園療養院。
黃秀瑄、蔡宗晃、江振亨、李易蓁(2004):認知結構團體療法對吸毒者戒治成效之研究,行政院衛生署九十三年度科技研究計畫。嘉義:國立中正大學犯罪防治學系。
黃俊棠(2004):毒品犯觀察勒戒成效之實證研究。嘉義:國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文發表會 14~45頁。
黃徵男(2004):21世紀監獄學理論、實務與對策。387~427頁。臺北:首席文化出版社。
黃徵男、賴擁連(2000):毒品犯罪者戒治處遇模式之探討,犯罪矯正季刊15期。
楊士隆、李宗憲(2005):當前臺灣地區毒品防治問題與對策。嘉義:國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所,2005年犯罪矯治國際研討會論文集。87~105頁。new window
楊士隆、林瑞欽、鄭昆山(2005):毒品問題與對策。行政院研考會出版。
臺灣台南監獄(2004):明德戒治分監十週年學術研討會手冊。臺南縣:臺灣臺南監獄。
臺灣臺北戒治所(2004):藥癮工作研討會手冊。桃園:臺灣臺北戒治所。
劉怡伶(2004):藥物成癮病患急性解毒戒治之成本效果評估-以草屯療養院為例。中國醫藥大學醫務管理研究所碩士論文20~22頁。
蔡清祥(2006):法務部第1073次部務會報報告資料。
蔡敦銘、李茂生(1995):在學青少年藥物濫用源及司法對應。行政院國科會研究計畫期末報告,專案編號NSC83-0301-H-002-100、NSC84-2411-H-030。
蔡德輝 楊士隆(2006):犯罪學(修定新版)。台北:五南。
蔡德輝、楊士隆(2003):少年犯罪理論與實務(第四版)。台北:五南。new window
蔡鴻文(2001):臺灣地區毒品犯罪實證研究。中央警察大學刑事警察研究所碩士論文31~32頁。
蔡振邦(2002):一般民眾、受戒治人及其家屬對現行戒治處遇成效評估之調查研究。行政院九十一年度民意調查計畫報告。
蔡振邦(2004):「毒品危害防制條例」修正後對專業工作推展之我見我思。台灣屏東戒治所研究報告。
鄧煌發(2001):國中生輟學成因及其與偏差行為相關性之研究。中央警察大學犯罪防治研究所博士論文。new window
賴擁連(2000):臺灣地區毒品犯罪者戒治處遇成效之研究,中央警察大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文。桃園:中央警察大學犯罪防治研究所。
駱宜安(2000):「毒品危害防制條例」評析,警學叢刊第31卷第2期,1~11頁。new window
薛雅尹(2003):我國戒毒政策成效評比之研究,國立東華大學公共行政研究所碩士論文,4~5頁。
蘇佩鈺(1997):施用毒品行為之刑事立法問題。中興大學法律學研究所刑事法學組碩士論文。
貳、外文部分
Alexander, R. and D. Murray, (1992).Understanding Substance Abuse and Treatment. Goodway Graphics, Springfield, VA.
Alexander, R., & Murray, D.(1992). Understanding substance abuse and treatment. Springfield, VA: Goodway Graphics.
Andrew R. Morral, Daniel F. McCaffrey, and Greg Ridgeway. Effectiveness of Community-Based Treatment for Substance-Abusing Adolescents: 12-Month Outcomes of Youths Entering Phoenix Academy or Alternative Probation Dispositions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2004, Vol. 18, No. 3, 257-268.
Anglin, M. Douglas. Maugh Ⅱ. Thomas H. (1992). Ensuring success in intervention with drug-using offenders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 521.
Botve, G.J. (1990). Substance abuse prevention: theory, practice, and effectiveness, In M. Tonry & J.Q. Wilson (Ed.), Drugs and crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brower, K.J., Blow, F.C.& Beresford, T.P. (1989). Treatment implication of chemical dependency models: an integrative approach. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 6, 147-157.
Clark, C. L. et al (1996). Doing Life! : A Program for Recovery from Addictions (13 Workbooks) US: DOING LIFE! International Inc.
Donvan,D,M.,(1988).Assessment of addictive behavior : implication of an emerging biopsychosocial model. In assessment of addictive behavior, edited by Dennis M.and G.. Alan Marlatt. New York: Guilford Press.
Finley, A.R.&B.S. Lenz (1998). The Chemical Dependence Treatment Documentation Sourcebook : A Comprehensive Collection of Program Management Tools, Clinical Documentation, and Psychoeducational Materials for Substance Abuse Treatment Professionals, US : John Wjley & Sons.
Finn, p. & NewLyn, A. K. (1993). Miami drug Court gives drug defendants a second chance. National Institute of Justice Journal MD Rockville; Ncj, 13-20.
Graham, M.G. 1987 ”Controlling Drug Abuse and Crime: A Recent Update.” NIJ Reports, March/April 2-7.
Hawkins, David J., Denise M. Lishnerm, Jeffery Jenson, and Richard Catelano 1987 “Delinquents and Drugs: What the Evidence Suggests about Prevention and Treatment Programming.” pp.81-131 in Youth at High Risk for Substance Use, edited by Barry S. Brown and Arnold R. Mills. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Hubbard, R. L., Craddock, S. G.., Flynn, P. M., Anderson J., & Etheridge, R. M. (1997). Overview of 1-year follow-up outcomes in the drug abuse treatment outcomes study (DATOS). Psychology of addictive behaviors 11.
Hubbard, R. L., Marsden, M. E., Cavanaugh, E. R., Rachel J. V., & Ginzburg, M. H. (1988). Role of drug-abuse treatment in limiting the spread of AIDS. Reviews of Infectious Disease 10, 377-394.
Hubbard, R.L., M.E.Marsden, J.V.Rachel, H.J.Harwood, E.R.Cavanaugh and H.M.Ginzburg. (1989).Drug Abuse Treatment:A National Study of Effectiveness. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Kandel, Denise,R. Kessler,and R. Margulies 1978 “Antecedents of Adolescent Initiation in State of Drug Use: A Developmental Analysis.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 7:13-40.
Kenneth Silverman, Dace Svikis, Conrad J. Wong, Jacqueline Hampton, Maxine L. Stitzer, and George E. Bigelow. A Reinforcement-Based Therapeutic Workspace for the Treatment of Drug Abuse: Three-Year Abstinence Outcomes. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 2002, Vol. 10, No. 3, 228-240.
Kraska P. B. (1991). The Unmentionable Alternative: The Need for and the Argument Against, the Decriminalization of Drug Laws. In the R. Weisheit (ed.)
Leshner, A. L. (1997). Introduction to the Special Issue: The National Institute on Drug Abuse’s (NIDA). Drug Abuse Treatment Outcomes Study (DATOS). Psychology of addictive behaviors 11 (4),211-215.
Lipton, D. S. (1995). The effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Lipton, Douglas S.(1988). Therapeutic communities: History, effectiveness and prospects, Corrections Today 60:6,pp106-109.
Lurigio A.J. (2000) .Criminal Justice& Behavior, Vol. 27 Issue 4. McBirde, D. C. & McCoy, C. B. (1993). The drugs-relationship analytical framework. The Prison Journal. Vol. 73, Nos. 3 & 4, pp257-278, by Sage Publications, Inc.
Lurigio, A. (2000). Drug treatment availability and effectiveness. Criminal Justice and Behavior 27 (4),495-528.
Mckay, James R., Richard V. Weiss.(2001). A Review of temporal effects and outcome predictors in substance abuse treatment studies with long-term follow-ups, evaluation review, vol 25(2),pp113-161.
Marlatt G. A. (1985). Relapse prevention: Theoretical rationale and overview of the model. In G. A. Marlatt, & J. R. Gordon (Eds.), Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addiction behaviors. (pp. 31-44). New York: The Guildford Press.
Marlatt G. A. (1985). Relapse Prevention: Theoretical rationale and overview of the model. In G. A. Marlatt, & J. R. Gordon (Eds.), Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addiction behaviors. (pp. 71-92). New York: The Guilford Press.
Pearson, Frank S. & Lipton, Douglas S.(1999). A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effectiveness of Correction-Based Treatments for Drug Abuse. Prison Journal, December, Vo1.79 Issue 4, pp384-406.
Reuter, P. (1988). Can The Barders Be Sealed? The Public Interest, 2 (92), 51-152. quoted from R. Weisheit (ed. ). Drug, Crime and the Criminal Justice System. OH, Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co.
Shafter, H. J.(1986).Conceptual crisis and the addictions: a philosophy of science perspective. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatmnet, Vol. 3.
Shulamith,L., & S. Ashenber(Editor)(2001) Ethnocultural Factors in Substance. Abuse Treatment , US : Guilford Press .
Simpson, D.D.,(1984).National Treatment System Evaluation Based on the Drug Abuse Reporting Program(DARP)follow-up Research. In Drug Abuse Treatment Evaluation: Strategies, Progress and Prospects, edited by Frank, M.T. and J.P. Ludford. Research Monograph 51. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. DHHS Publication NO. ADM 84-1329.
Simpson, D.D., G.W. Joe and B.S. Brown.(1997). Treatment Retention and follow-up Outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study(DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 11(4).
Simpson, D. D., Joe, G. W.,& Brown, B. S. (1997). Treatment retention and follow-up outcomes in the drug abuse treatment outcomes study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behavior 11 (4),216-229.
Spohn Cassia and Holleran David.,(2002), The effect of imprisonment on recidivism rates of felony offenders: A Focus on drug offenders, criminology 40:2,pp329-357.
Stinchcomb, J. B., & Fox, V. B. (2000). Introduction to corrections. (4th ED.) Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Vaillant, G. E. (1998), Natural history of addiction and pathways to recovery. In Principles of addiction medicine, 2d ed., edited by Graham, A. W. and T. Shultz,295-308. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wagner, E. F. (Editor), & H. W. H. Waldron (2001) Innovations in Adolescent Substance Abuse Interventions, US: Pergamon Press.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE