毒品問題是一個涉及經濟、政治、文化與法律的複雜問題。在不同的時空與各種因素的交互影響下，施用毒品者的定位也就呈現浮動的狀態。在我國的情形從最早期的消費者、殘害國計民生的罪犯到現在的病犯。國家政策的轉變著實影響到整個法律的制訂與施行。目前我國與德國對於施用毒品相關之犯罪，雖在刑事處遇的措施上皆採取醫療優先的政策，不過兩國法制面的設計與執行成效卻截然不同。其中的原因究竟為何？是政策不符合實際上的需要？抑或是法制面的設計無法貫徹政策目的？若不針對整個毒癮戒治程序進行通盤的比較與思考，這些提問將永遠無法獲得解答，而施用毒品者不斷地在司法體系中徘徊似乎也成為其必然的宿命。因此本文處理的重點主要是透過兩國相類似措施的比較，找出我國觀察勒戒、強制戒治與緩起訴附命戒癮治療處分待改進之處。至於我國法未規定的措施，例如：毒品微罪不起訴處分與對於毒癮者暫緩刑事執行的規定，在醫療優先於刑罰的考量下，亦可做為我國立法的參考。

毒品法庭自美國發展而逐漸影響世界各地，甚至成為台灣修法倡議，是晚近刑事政策的重要議題。為深入了解毒品法庭，除介紹制度的發展概況與具體內涵外，尚將進一步考掘歷史成因及改革困境，並從制度構造及程序法理的二方面剖析其所引發的爭議。最後，將問題帶回台灣，在透過實證數據理解實務現況的基礎上，將改革情勢與制度問題脈絡化進行比較研究，試圖從刑事政策的觀點提出評價性建議，以作為台灣毒品施用者處遇的策進方向。 毒品法庭於其權限範圍內，避免對於毒品施用者施加刑罰，而改採治療的態度與方法，促使其參與以治療為主、多元且細緻的處遇。在此同時，也視其表現給予懲罰或獎勵，進行嚴密監督以強化治療義務的要求，加深毒品施用者兼具病人與犯人身分的矛盾。另一方面，程序轉為合作、案主導向、問題解決，則與以往對抗、案件導向、真實發現有別。藉此反思台灣毒品施用者處遇，重要的毋寧是檢討制度的各種爭議，以及其背後所顯示的刑事政策的價值選擇。 / Drug Courts that have risen from development in the United States have had a gradual influence on the rest of the world, and have even been amended into Taiwanese law. This has been an important issue in recent discussions of criminal policy. In order to understand Drug Courts in detail, this article first introduces the background and the contents of the system, and then explores historical causes and reform dilemmas. It then analyzes the issue from the perspective of institutional structure and procedural legal principles. To then focus the issue back on Taiwan, on the basis of understanding the current state of practice through empirical data, a comparative study of the context of reform and institutional issues is conducted. Finally, this article will attempt to put forward a proposal for an evaluation from the perspective of criminal policy as a strategy for dealing with drug addicts in Taiwan. Within its jurisdiction, the Drug Court will avoid applying penalties to drug users, and instead adopt attitudes and methods that focus on meticulous and multi-faceted methods that promote participation in treatment. At the same time, they also punish or reward based on performance, carry out strict supervision aimed at strengthening requirements and treatment obligations, and deepen the contradiction between the identity of patients and prisoners among drug users. On the other hand, the transition of procedures to collaboration, case-director orientation, and problem solving is different from confrontation, case-orientation, and truth discovery. In this regard, it is important to reflect on the problems with the system and the choice of values of the criminal policy seen behind them.