在中国，吸毒是一种违法行为。根据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》第72条之规定，吸食、注射毒品的行为人，应当被处以罚款或治安拘留。同时又根据该法第10条之规定，对于违反治安管理的外国人，可以附加适用限期出境或者驱逐出境。
这说明，外国人即使仅是被处以罚款而未被治安拘留，也将面临被驱除出境的巨大风险。
在上海地区，公安机关对该法第10条关于驱逐出境的理解和适用，近日存在明显的从严趋势，一旦外国人因吸毒被治安处罚，原则上一律都会被适用附加的驱逐出境。
本文所要讨论的问题是：如果行为人的吸毒行为发生在境外，在进入到中国境内后被公安机关查获，这种情况下，中国警方能否对其进行治安处罚。
先看一个真实案例：
A国公民D，持中国工作签证在上海生活、就业。2019年3月的某一天，其在上海某派出所经毛发检测被查出可卡因阳性。D向公安机关陈述，其于2018年圣诞节期间曾在A国吸食过毒品可卡因，但在中国境内并未有过吸毒行为。公安机关根据毛发检测阳性的鉴定结论以及D本人承认其有过吸毒行为的供述，对D做出了罚款500元的治安处罚决定，并附加适用了驱逐出境。
由于D的事业发展、社交圈均在中国，如适用驱逐出境将对其生活造成巨大的影响，现D已全权委托笔者律师团队，向相关法院提起行政诉讼，要求法院撤销公安机关先前对其作出的治安处罚决定，从而使得驱逐出境措施失去所依附的法律基础。
在法院作出最终判决之前，笔者将对本案所涉及的几个有争议的法律和证据问题做简要分析：
一、毛发检测结论为阳性，能够说明什么？
尿检和毛发检测为当前常用的两种毒品检测方法。
毒品进入尿液是一个持续代谢和快速降解的过程，毒品痕迹几天内就会完全消失。所以通过尿检，只能检测出行为人在较短时间之内（通常不超过3天）是否有吸毒行为。
但毒品进入人体后，会随着血液循环进入毛囊，毒品原体及其代谢物会被毛发中的角质蛋白固定，并稳定地保留在毛发中，通过毛发检测毒品的追溯期可长达6个月。
也就是说，毛发检测结论为阳性，能够说明行为人在6个月之内有过吸毒行为，但无法精确到该6个月之内具体的吸毒日期或区间。
二、吸食、注射毒品，是一个具体动作，还是一种持续状态？
首先，我们需要厘清吸毒行为和吸毒成瘾这两个易混淆概念之间的区别。
根据2011年公安部和卫生部联合发布的《吸毒成瘾认定办法》，吸毒成瘾指的是一种人体体内含有毒品成分的持续状态。
而吸毒行为是吸食、注射毒品的简称，是《治安管理处罚法》中的用语，指的是造成吸毒成瘾状态的某一个具体动作，如吸食或注射毒品的动作。
《治安管理处罚法》所要处罚的对象，应当是行为人实施的某一种违反该法律的行为或动作，而不应当是行为人所持续处于的某种状态。
但在公安的执法实践中，常有发生只要毛发或尿液检测结果呈阳性，不论是否有证据证明吸毒行为存在，是否具有管辖权，一律进行治安处罚的情况。这就是把吸毒成瘾状态错误地套用成了吸毒行为。
三、对于发生在境外的吸毒行为，国内警方有管辖权吗？
《治安管理处罚法》第4条规定，在中华人民共和国领域内发生的违反治安管理行为，除法律有特别规定的外，适用本法。
换言之，如果违反治安管理行为发生在中国境外，就不得适用本法，中国警方也就无管辖权对行为人作出治安处罚决定。
在本案中，如果现有证据无法证明D的吸毒行为发生在中国境内，那么中国警方将不具备对本案的管辖权。
四、现有证据能够证明吸毒行为地究竟在哪个国家吗？
能够证明D的吸毒行为发生在A国境内的证据有：
1、D关于其圣诞节期间在A国境内吸毒的供述。
2、D护照上的出入境记录和机票信息，证明其圣诞节期间确实在A国。
3、毛发检测阳性结论的作出时间为2019年3月，2018年圣诞节为12月25日，处在6个月追溯期涵盖的范围，对D的证词形成了印证。
上述证明吸毒行为发生在A国的证据均具有较强的证明力，并且能够相互印证。相反，现有证据无法证明D的吸毒行为发生在中国境内。
综上，笔者认为，若发生在境外的吸毒行为在中国境内被查获，执法机关不应简单地用毒品检测结论去掩盖管辖权上的缺失，用吸毒成瘾状态去掩盖证明吸毒行为存在证据上的不足，而是应充分重视证据和法律事实，审慎地作出治安处罚决定。
Study of the Jurisdiction of Penalty for Public Security when Drug Ingestion Overseas is Seized within Borders
Drug ingestion is an illegal act in People’s Republic of China. According to Article 72 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Administrative Penalties for Public Security, a person who committing acts of ingesting or injecting narcotic drugs shall be fined or be detained. At the same time, following Article 10 of this law, to a foreigner who acts against the administration of public security, leaving the country within a time limit or deportation attached to a penalty may be applicable.
This indicates that even though a foreigner is only fined and not detained for ingesting drugs, he/she will face high risks of deportation.
In the city of Shanghai, the comprehension and application of Article 10 by Public Security Agency has an obvious trend of becoming strict during these days. Once foreigners get penalties for drug ingestion, they all will be applied to attached deportation in principle.
The article would like to discuss whether Chinese police could apply security penalty to the actor when the act of ingesting drugs occurred overseas, and was seized by the Public Security Agency after entering the border.
Take a real case as an example
Citizen D from Country A, who holds Chinese Work Visa, lives and works in Shanghai. One day in March 2019, the person was tested positive for cocaine through hair detection at a Shanghai police station. D stated to the Public Security Agency that he/she ingested narcotic drugs - cocaine - in Country A during the Christmas of 2018, but did not have any ingestion or injection acts in China. According to the expert conclusion of positive symptom in hair detection and D’s statement about drug ingestion acts, Public Security Agency made a decision of security penalty for fining 500 RMB and applying attached deportation.
Since D’s career development and social circle are both within China, there will be profound consequences to his/her life when being applied to deportation. Now D has already fully entrusted author’s legal team, filed an administrative lawsuit to relative court, aimed for the court to cancel the security penalty from Public Security Agency. Thus the deportation measure will lose its legal basis.
Before the court making a final judgement, author will briefly analyze several controversial law and evidence issues involved in this case:
I. What can be illustrated from the conclusion of positive hair detection?
Urine test and hair detection are two common methods of detecting narcotic drugs nowadays.
The access of drug into urine is a process of persistent metabolism and rapid degradation, and the trail of taking drugs can be vanished within several days. Therefore, through urine test, it is only capable of detecting whether the actor ingested drugs during a short time period (usually no longer than 3 days).
However, after narcotic drug enters human body, it will be led by blood circulation and move into hair follicle. Its prototype and metabolite will be fixed by cornifin in hair and steadily reserved. The retroactive period of hair detection could be up to 6 months.
In other words, when the result of hair detection is positive, it can prove that the actor ingested drugs during the past 6 months, but it is inaccurate to verify a certain date or period of drug ingestion within these 6 months.
- Is smoking or injecting drugs a specific action or a persistent state?
To start with, we have to distinguish between two confusing concepts: drug ingestion and drug addiction.
According to the Measures for determining drug addiction issued jointly by the Ministry of Public Security and Health Department, drug addiction is a persistent state that human body contains drug substances.
On the other hand, drug ingestion is the general term of ingesting or injecting drugs, a word that is written in Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Penalties for Public Security, refers to a specific action that lead to the drug addiction state, such as the action of ingesting or injecting drugs.
The penalty object of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Penalties for Public Security should be a movement or action conducted by the person that violates the aforementioned law, instead of a persistent state that the person has.
However, in the law enforcement practice of the Ministry of Public Security, as long as the hair or urine test results are positive, penalties for public security would be carried out even if the Ministry of Public Security failed to prove the drug ingestion behavior by existing evidence. This is an incorrect of applying drug ingestion to drug addiction. - Does the domestic police have jurisdiction over drug injections that occur outside the country?
As regulated by Article 4 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Penalties for Public Security: This law is applicable to acts committed against the administration of public security within the territory of the People's Republic of China, except where specially provided for by other laws.
In other words, if the acts that are committed against the administration of public security outside the territory of the People’s Republic of China, the law would be no longer applicable, thus the Chinese police have no jurisdiction to make a public security decision on the person.
In this case, if the existing evidence is insufficient to prove that D’s drug ingestion occurred within the territory of the People's Republic of China, then Chinese police would not have the jurisdiction over this case. - Could existing evidence prove which country the drug injection happened in?
The evidence that could prove D’s injection happened in the territory of Country A are: - The testimony of D staying in Country A during the Christmas Holiday
- The entry and exit records on D’s passport and the flight ticket information prove that D was indeed in Country A at Christmas.
- The positive conclusion of the hair test was made in March 2019, and the Christmas in 2018 was December 25, therefore the interval is within the range covered by the 6-month retrospective period. The testimony of D is thus confirmed.
The aforementioned evidences showing that drug ingestion occurred in country A is strongly proved and could confirm each other. On the contrary, the available evidence fails to prove that D's drug ingestion occurred in China.
In summary, the author believes that the if the drug ingestions occur outside the country and are caught in China, law enforcement agencies should not simply use the drug detection results to disguise the lack of jurisdiction, and use drug addiction to conceal the missing evidence that proves the action of drug ingestion. Instead, evidence and legal facts should be paid full attention, and the decisions of penalties of public security should be made prudently.