臺灣青少年毒品犯罪率之數量分析－家庭結構與娛樂因素之影響

A Quantitative Study of Drug-Related Crime Among Teenagers and Young People in Taiwan: The Impact of Household Structure and Entertainment Venues

10.6209/JORIES.202112_66(4).0003

梁文馨(Wen-Hsin Liang)；黃麗璇(Li-Hsuan Huang)

犯罪 ； 青少年 ； 毒品 ； 毒品犯罪 ； 數量分析 ； crime ； adolescent ； drugs ； drug-related crime ； quantitative analysis

教育科學研究期刊

66卷4期（2021 / 12 / 01）

69 - 101

繁體中文

本研究以「警政統計查詢網」2002～2018年縣市別逐年的總合毒品犯罪率資料，分析12～23歲毒品犯罪問題並著重家庭結構與娛樂因素之影響。實證上採面板數據固定效果模型，修正可能的估計偏誤、以兩階段最小平方法修正內生性問題，並根據結果提出可供教育現場擬訂毒品防制參考之政策，以降低學生毒品成癮問題。實證結果發現，此年齡人口占比與縣市毒品犯罪率、毒品犯罪級數均有關。其他條件均相同下，12～17歲、18～23歲人口占比分別與一級毒品犯罪率以及二、三級毒品犯罪率呈正相關。12～23歲毒品犯罪行為與特殊家庭結構有關，尤其是單親家庭；與隔代教養家庭的關係較低，且視年齡別與毒品級數而定。娛樂業家數雖與18～23歲毒品犯罪有關，然關係不大；完成大學教育與緝毒的嚇阻效果對降低青年毒品犯罪率的效果很高；家庭可支配所得與12～17歲少年（女）三級毒品犯罪率亦具正相關。本研究提出幾個政策建議之核心為：針對年齡層設定與調整毒品防制重點與方法，例如除國中與小學，也應加強關注高中職與大專校院學生單親與隔代教養之情況、追蹤瞭解高中職與大學學生休學及退學的高危險群、提高鄰近高中職及大學校院娛樂場所（特別是三級毒品）之查緝與查緝頻率，以及留意家庭收入較高家庭12～17歲學生的身心狀況與異常行為。

Motivation: Drugs are addictive, and their use and attendant negative consequences and externalities impose a heavy burden on society. According to the Annual Report on Drug Abuse and Inspection Statistics (Taiwan Food and Drug Administration, 2018), juvenile drug use accounted for 59.3% of schedule III drug-related crimes in 2017. Because curiosity is one of the most important factors leading to drug use, school or university campuses are key sites for young people's drug addiction prevention. The literature on drug-related crime is mostly based on qualitative research, and this is especially so for the research conducted in Taiwan. This study analyzed data from the Statistics of Police Work (National Police Agency, Ministry of the Interior, 2002-2018) by using quantitative methods, with the aim of determining the driving forces of drug-related crime by teenagers and young people in Taiwan. We focused on the effect of household structure and entertainment venues nearby, with an aim of determining policy suggestions for drug abuse prevention in schools of various levels. The two research questions of this study were as follows: Research question 1: Would the pattern of drug-related crime in counties in Taiwan be related to the youth population structure? Research question 2: Would household structure and entertainment venues be crucial factors on the drug-related crime rate for teenagers and young people in Taiwan? What other factors would be significant? Literature Review: The reasons for drug-related crimes are many, ranging from an individual's early experiences in childhood and adolescence to their living environment, social pressure, and economic status. The drug-related crime literature, hence, comes from both natural and social sciences, thus revealing its interdisciplinary character. The theory of lower-class culture conflict, for instance, proposes that crime is a natural response of individuals from a lower-class culture to the environment (Miller, 1958). The general strain theory of crime and delinquency states that the causes of crime include psychological factors, such as stress and anxiety, which means that middle- or upper-class people may also commit crimes (Agnew, 1992). Crime may also reflect people's choices, however. Becker (1968) proposed that when the expected reward from crime is higher than the pay received in legal employment (particularly when unemployed), the probability of choosing to commit a crime increases. Even employed persons may engage in illegal activities, as long as the utility obtained by crime is higher than that from employment (Grogger, 1998; Raphael & Winter-Ebmer, 2001). Moreover, a larger police force, representing a higher probability of being arrested, may lower criminal inclinations (Levitt, 1997; Marvell & Moody, 1996). Relevant research has suggested that the living environments and family backgrounds of young drug offenders tend to be similar: they typically have weak relationships with their families, have peers who are drug users, and have low academic achievement (Robertson et al., 2003; Shu et al., 2015). Youth drug-related crime may be related to weak social bonds (Lin et al., 2001), echoing social control theory (Hirschi, 1969). Crime may also be caused by the attitudes and values of people, with these being transferred from generation to generation (Miller, 1958). The accessibility of drugs, for instance, at large-scale music festivals and entertainment venues, and opportunities to commit crimes and other antisocial behaviors may be critical influential factors among the young (Chin, 2018; Day et al., 2018; Tossmann et al., 2001). Research Methods: Fixed-effects models for panel data were employed for empirical analysis, and panel data estimation bias was corrected. In addition, the causal relationship between the drug-related crime rate and unemployment was considered (Lin, 2008; Lin & Liu, 2006; Raphael & Winter-Ebmer, 2001). The Durbin-Wu-Hausman test was used to test for overidentification, and if an endogenous problem was identified, the two-stage least squares method with clustered standard errors was used to obtain consistent estimates. Results: ．The schedule II drug-related crime rate of young people aged 12-23 exhibited a rapid increase. Among those aged 18-23, with other factors remaining constant, our data indicated an average increase of 98.68 people per year in a county committing a crime. ．The schedules I and III drug-related crime rates were positively related to the proportion of the population aged 12-17 and 18-23, respectively. ．Based on the coefficient estimates, for every 1% increase in the proportion of single-parent families, the schedules II and III drug-related crime rates of 12-17 and 18-23-year-old individuals increased by 39.25 (113.03), and 23.81 (25.92) people, respectively. ．Grandparent family positively correlated with the schedule III drug-related crime rate of 18-23-year-old individuals, with a large estimated coefficient (130.95), compared with otherwise similar young people. ．The estimated coefficient of attendance at music festivals for the schedule II crime rate for those aged 12-17 was 10.34. A significant relationship between the number of entertainment venues and the number of schedule III drug offenses of people aged 18-23 was observed. ．The drug-related crime rate of youths aged 12-17 slightly increased with household income, especially for the schedule III drug-related crime rate, which includes drugs that are not easily recognized and can be easily consumed, such as ketamine and FM2. ．An increase in the proportion of the educated population in counties by 1% can significantly reduce the schedule III drug-related crime rate of young people aged 18-23 by 45.99 people per year. ．Every 1% increase in the number of antinarcotics personnel was found to reduce the schedule III drug-related crime rate of young people aged 12-17 and 18-23 by 366.52 and 505.05 people per year, respectively. Discussion: The empirical results indicate that the drug-related crime rate of a county is associated with the proportion of the population aged 12-23 and that the drug-related crime rate varies across the four schedules of drugs. With other factors remaining constant, the more youths aged 12-17 (aged 18-23) are in the population, the higher the schedule I (schedule II, and III) drug-related crime rates are. The causes of drug-related crime for adolescents seem to differ from those for adults. Living in a single-parent family is a significant explanatory variable for the drug-related crime rate of young people aged 12-23, especially for crimes relating to schedule II and III drugs among young people aged 18-23. Grandparent family is significantly related to the schedule III drug-related crime rate of people aged 18-23, and the impact of grandparent family depends on a young person's age and the drug schedule. The presence of entertainment venues nearby is an important factor for drug-related crime only for people aged 18-23, with a small effect. The percentage of educated people in a county and the number of antinarcotics police officers have a negative relationship with the drug-related crime rate of people aged 18-23. Household disposable income is also a factor for drug-related crime among those aged 12-17. Policy Suggestions: We propose several policy suggestions based on the findings: ．Revising policies for drug abuse prevention according to age and making this the top priority for schools of all levels. ．Giving more attention to young people from single-parent families in senior high schools and colleges as well as in primary schools and junior high schools. ．Paying special attention to the situation of students raised by grandparents and to those at higher risk of dropping out of school, especially in senior high schools and colleges. ．Enhancing drug policing in entertainment venues near senior high schools and colleges. ．Continuing to monitor the physical and mental health of children from families with higher socioeconomic status.

1. 吳吉裕、陳巧雲（2014）。青少年販毒組織架構及其網絡分佈之初探。青少年犯罪防治研究期刊，6（1），33-80。【Wu, C.-Y., & Chan, C.-Y. (2014). Preliminary adolescent drug trafficking organization and its network of distribution. Journal of Research in Delinquency and Prevention, 6(1), 33-80. https://doi.org/10.29751/JRDP.　201406_6(1).0002】
   連結：
2. 吳枚瑛、洪瑞兒（2020）。探討高雄市青少年健康知識、態度及行為素養。教育科學研究期刊，65（3），187-223。【Wu, M.-Y., & Hong, Z.-R. (2020). Exploration of Kaohsiung City adolescents’ health knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral literacy. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 65(3), 187-223. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.　202009_65(3).0007】
   連結：
3. 林明仁、劉仲偉（2006）。失業真的會導致犯罪嗎？以臺灣1978年至2003年縣市資料為例。經濟論文叢刊，34（4），445-482。【Lin, M.-J., & Liu, C.-W. (2006). Does unemployment increases crime? Evidence from county data of Taiwan 1978-2003. Taiwan Economic Review, 34(4), 445-482. 】
   連結：
4. 彭淑華（2006）。台灣女性單親家庭生活處境之研究。東吳社會工作學報，14，25-62。【Pong, S.-H. (2006). The life situations of female-headed families. Soochow Journal of Social Work, 14, 25-62. 】
   連結：
5. 楊士隆、張梵盂、曾淑萍（2016）。青少年非法藥物使用進階之實證調查：以收容少年為例。藥物濫用防治，1（2），1-25。【Yang, S.-L., Chang, F.-Y., & Tzeng, S.-P. (2016). Investigating the illicit drugs use among juvenile suspects: Application of gateway theory. Journal of Substance Abuse Research, 1(2), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.6645/JSAR.　2016.1.2.1】
   連結：
6. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-88.
   連結：
7. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217.
   連結：
8. Day, N., Criss, J., Griffiths, B., Gujral, S. K., John-Leader, F., Johnston, J., & Pit, S. (2018). Music festival attendees’ illicit drug use, knowledge and practices regarding drug content and purity: A cross-sectional survey. Harm Reduction Journal, 15(1).
   連結：
9. Ehrlich, I. (1973). Participation in illegitimate activities: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 521-565.
   連結：
10. Entorf, H., & Spengler, H. (2000). Socioeconomic and demographic factors of crime in Germany: Evidence from panel data of the German states. International Review of Law and Economics, 20(1), 75-106.
    連結：
11. Grogger, J. (1998). Market wages and youth crime. Journal of Labor Economics, 16(4), 756-791.
    連結：
12. Ihlanfeldt, K. R. (2007). Neighborhood drug crime and young males’ job accessibility. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 151-164.
    連結：
13. Kandel, D., & Faust, R. (1975). Sequence and stages in patterns of adolescent drug use. Archives of General Psychiatry, 32(7), 923-932.
    連結：
14. Kleck, G., & Barnes, J. C. (2014). Do more police lead to more crime deterrence? Crime & Delinquency, 60(5), 716-738.
    連結：
15. Kovandzic, T. V., Schaffer, M. E., Vieraitis, L. M., Orrick, E. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Police, crime and the problem of weak instruments: Revisiting the “more police, less crime” thesis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32, 133-158.
    連結：
16. Lim, M. S., Hellard, M. E., Hocking, J. S., & Aitken, C. K. (2008). A cross-sectional survey of young people attending a music festival: Associations between drug use and musical preference. Drug and Alcohol Review, 27(4), 439-441.
    連結：
17. Lochner, L. (2004). Education, work, and crime: A human capital approach. International Economic Review, 45(3), 811-843.
    連結：
18. Martins, M., Santos, M. A., & Pillon, S. C. (2008). Low-income families’ perceptions on the use of drugs by one of their members. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 16(2), 293-298.
    連結：
19. Marvell, T. B., & Moody, C. E. (1996). Specification problems, police levels, and crime rates. Criminology, 34(4), 609-646.
    連結：
20. Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14(3), 5-19.
    連結：
21. Nieh, H.-P., Wu, W.-C., Luh, D.-L., Yen, L.-L., Hurng, B.-S., & Chang, H.-Y. (2018). Will personal values predict the development of smoking and drinking behaviors? A prospective cohort study of children and adolescents in Taiwan. Journal of Health Psychology, 23(7), 982-992.
    連結：
22. Pope, H. G., Jr., Ionescu-Pioggia, M., & Pope, K. W. (2001). Drug use and life style among college undergraduates: A 30-year longitudinal study. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(9), 1519-1521.
    連結：
23. Raphael, S., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2001). Identifying the effect of unemployment on crime. The Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 259-283.
    連結：
24. Reilly, B., & Witt, R. (1992). Crime and unemployment in Scotland: An econometric analysis using regional data. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 39(2), 213-228.
    連結：
25. Tossmann, P., Boldt, S., & Tensil, M. D. (2001). The use of drugs within the techno party scene in European metropolitan cities. European Addiction Research, 7(1), 2-23.
    連結：
26. Vaughn, M. G., Shook, J. J., Perron, B. E., Abdon, A., & Ahmedani, B. (2011). Patterns and correlates of illicit drug selling among youth in the USA. Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation, 2(1), 103-111.
    連結：
27. Wood, D. M., Nicolaou, M., & Dargan, P. I. (2009). Epidemiology of recreational drug toxicity in a nightclub environment. Substance Use & Misuse, 44(11), 1495-1502.
    連結：
28. 中山醫學大學（2020）。毒品之型態與危害。中山醫學大學附設醫院醫事檢驗科。【Chung Shan Medical University. (2020). Types and harm of drugs. Medical Laboratory. https://web.csh.org.tw/web/　a32000/?page_id=366】
29. 內政部警政署（2020）。動態查詢。警政統計查詢網。https://ba.npa.gov.tw/npa/stmain.jsp?sys=100【National Police Agency. (2020). Dynamic query. Police Statistics Inquiry, Ministry of the Interior. https://ba.npa.　gov.tw/npa/stmain.jsp?sys=100】
30. 反毒大本營（2020）。毒品統計分析。反毒大本營統計報告與教材─統計資料網。https://antidrug.moj.gov.tw/lp-1197-2.html【Anti-Drug. (2020). Drug statistics analysis. Statistics report and teaching materials－ Statistics network. https://　antidrug.moj.gov.tw/lp-1197-2.html】
31. 王舒芸（2015）。隔代教養家庭生活需求及福利服務研究調查期末報告（衛生福利部社會及家庭署委託研究調查）。衛生福利部社會及家庭署。【Wang, S.-U. (2015). The survey on the life needs and welfare services of intergenerational parenting families (Commissioned Research Report). Social and Family Affairs Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare.】
32. 王麗娟、蔡成華（2005）。初次戒毒男女海洛因依賴者應付方式和社會支持狀況比較。中國藥物依賴性雜誌，14（1），62-64。https://caod.oriprobe.com/articles/8553884/COMPARISION_OF_COPING_SCHEME_AND_SOCIAL_SUPPORT_CO.htm【Wang, L.-J., & Cai, C.-H. (2005). Comparison of coping scheme and social support condition of male and female herion addicts first undertaking drug detoxification. Chinese Journal of Drug Dependence, 14(1), 62-64. https://caod.oriprobe.com/articles/8553884/COMPARISION_OF_COPING_SCHEME_AND_SOCIAL_SUPPORT_CO.htm】
33. 邱珍琬（2010）。國中生在隔代教養下的家庭教育。家庭教育與諮商學刊，8，33-66。https://　doi.org/10.6472/JFEC.201006.0033【Chiu, J. (2010). Family education for junior high school students in grandparenting families. Journal of Family Education and Counseling, 8, 33-66. https://doi.org/10.6472/JFEC.201006.0033】
34. 林健陽、陳玉書、廖有錄、曹光文（2001）。「毒品危害防制條例」施行後毒品犯罪者矯治成效之研究。中央警察大學犯罪防治學報，2，101-123。【Lin, C.-Y., Chen, Y.-S., Liaw, Y.-L., & Chau, K.-W. (2001). The study of effectiveness on drug offenders treatment after the Narcotic Prohibition. Journal of Crime Prevention and Correction Central Police University, 2, 101-　123.】
35. 秦文鎮（2018）。新興毒品概論及其防制。臺灣醫界，61（9），30-34。【Chin, W.-C. (2018). Introduction to emerging drugs and their prevention. Taiwan Medical Journal, 61(9), 30-34.】
36. 許金春、陳玉書、蔡田木（2015）。第三級、第四級毒品濫用與防制之研究（國家發展委員會委託研究）。國家發展委員會。【Shu, C.-T., Chen, Y.-S., & Tsai, T.-M. (2015). Research on drug abuse and preventions for schedules three and four drug (Commissioned Research Report). National Development Council.】
37. 張淑慧、張文賢（2019）。施用毒品者家庭的社會安全網。社區發展季刊，165，220-235。【Chang, S.-H., & Chang, W.-S. (2019). Social safety net for the families of drug users. Community Development Journal, 165, 220-235.】
38. 曾志全、林雅雯、江柏叡（2015）。單親家庭管教方式及學校學習環境與青少年偏差行為關係之探討。社會科學學報，22，42-77。【Tseng, C.-C., Lin, Y.-W., & Chiang, P.-J. (2015). A study of juvenile delinquency related to discipline of single-parent family, and school learning environment. Journal of Social Science, 22, 42-77.】
39. 黃斐莉（1993）。台北市的單親家庭子女照顧之研究（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣大學。【Huang, F.-L. (1993). Child care of single-parent families in Taipei City [Unpublished master’s thesis]. National Taiwan University.】
40. 新北市政府。沒錢戒毒怎麼辦？毒品防治辦公室網站。https://drugfree.ntpc.gov.tw/index.php? action=problem&id=7【New Taipei City. What if you don’t have money to detox. Substance Abuse Control Office Network. https://drugfree.　ntpc.gov.tw/index.php?action=problem&id=7】
41. 衛生福利部（2018）。2018年「藥物濫用案件暨檢驗統計資料」年報。食品藥物管理署。【Ministry of Health and Welfare. (2018). Annual report on drug abuse and inspection statistics. Taiwan Food and Drug Administration. 】
42. 簡文吟（2009）。臺北市單親家庭數量、分佈、特性及需求調查研究報告（臺北市政府社會局委託研究報告）。臺北市政府社會局。【Chien, W.-Y. (2009). An investigation on the number, distribution, characteristics and needs of single-parent families in Taipei City (Commissioned Research Report). Department of Social Welfare, Taipei City.】
43. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
44. Levitt, S. D. (1997). Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effects of police on crime. The American Economic Review, 87(3), 270-290.
45. Lin, M.-J. (2008). Does unemployment increase crime? Evidence from U.S. data 1974-2000. Journal of Human Resources, 43(2), 413-436.
46. Reuter, P., MacCoun, R. J., Murphy, P., Abrahamse, A., & Simon, B. (1990). Money from crime: A study of the economics of drug dealing in Washington, D.C. The Rand Corporation.
47. Robertson, E. B., David, S. L., & Rao, S. A. (2003). Preventing drug use among children and adolescents: A research-based guide for parents, educators, and community leaders (2nd ed.). National Institute on Drug Abuse. https://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/preventing　druguse_2_1.pdf
48. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT.
49. Yip, P. S. F., Joe-Laidler, K. A., Law, C. K., Chang, S., Lo, W. T. L., & Wong, C. K. (2017). Assessing the socioeconomic costs of drug abuse in Hong Kong SAR. HKJC Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention, the University of Hong Kong. https://www.nd.gov.hk/pdf/BDF140030_ report.pdf

1. (2023)。打擊毒品販運之跨境執法研究。中國行政評論，29(4)，17-28。
2. (2024)。《少年事件處理法》修法對兒少偏差行為輔導與管教之挑戰與因應。學校行政，150，203-228。
3. (2024)。青少年物質濫用、成癮和心理健康。精神衛生護理雜誌，19(2)，8-15。