PROBLEMS ON DRUG REHABILITATION WITH OTHER OFFENCES ACCORDING TO DRUG REHABILITATION ACT B.E. 2545

Abstract

The objectives of this research article are to study the concept, theory and the restriction of drug rehabilitation with other offences according to Drug Rehabilitation Act B.E. 2545 by comparing with other foreign drug rehabilitation laws and analyzing those problems in order to improve the law. It is a qualitative research from law books, research documents, rules of the Supreme Court and relating thesis as well as credible internet sources by using analysis and comparison methods on Thai and foreign laws in order to adapt the law. According to the restriction of Drug Rehabilitation Act B.E. 2545, a person who is suspected of or being prosecuted for other offences punishable by imprisonment or who is serving imprisonment is prohibited from rehabilitation. Being excepted from appropriate treatment during prosecution of other offences has resulted in many issues as well as the attempt to avoid rehabilitation which leads to the failure to deal with drug abuse. The study finds that the restriction of Drug Rehabilitation Act B.E. 2545 is incompliant with rehabilitative theory, the principle of drug abuser rehabilitation and the principle of presumption of innocence. Furthermore, the law has no intention to eliminate a repeat offender but the spirit of the law is to give the abuser a right and appropriate treatment. In other foreign countries such as Malaysia and Rhode Island (USA), such restriction does not exist. Therefore, provisions on Drug Rehabilitation Act B.E. 2545 should be amended by obliging drug abuser to receive the treatment during the prosecution of other offences even though he is suspected of or being prosecuted for other offences punishable by imprisonment.