I. Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking in Drugs at Global and Regional Levels.

It was estimated that in 2016, 275 million people all over the world have
taken a drug at least once in their lifetime (approximately 5.6% of the world
population at the age 15-64 years). This population consisted of 192 million
marihuana users, 34 million users of prescribed amphetamine and stimulant East
Nusa Tenggara/NTT, 21 million ecstasy users, 19 million opiate users, and 18
million cocaine addicts.

Among these drug abusers 31 million are extremely in need of treatment,

as they suffer from severe drug abuse problems. Based on WHO data at least
450 people died from drug abuse in 2015. Opioids are still the main destructive
factor causing approx. 76% of death cases among victims of drug abuse.

There are 11 million injecting drug abusers in the world; 1.3 million among
them are HIV carriers; 5.5 million have Hepatitis C, and 1 million have both, HIV
and hepatitis C.

a. The Latest Trend

1) Compared to the previous years the total production of herbal
based Narcotics has reached its highest record this year.

The global production of opium has increased rapidly 65%

from the production in 2016, reaching a total of 10,500 tons in 2017.
The largest opium production of 9,000 tons was produced by
Afghanistan. An increase of 87% from the previous year. Cultvation
area of opium poppy increased 37% in 2017. Nearly 420,000 Ha of
opium poppy cultivation was discovered, 75% of which was found in
Afghanistan.

From 2015 to 2016 overall seizures of opiates increased

almost 50%. The largest seizure occurred in Afghanistan. Global
seizures of heroin reached 91 tons.

Approx. 1,410 tons cocaine was produced in 2016, showing an

increase of 25% from the year before. 866 tons of cocaine was
produced in Columbia. In 2016 the areal of coca cultivation consists
of 213,000 Ha, almost 69% was located in Columbia.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 1

 2) Misuse of prescribed medicines becomes the principal threat in the
world.
Misuse of prescribed medicines containing opioids has
become most alarming. In North America fentanyl mixed with heroin
and other medicines has caused many death cases. The main
apprehension in Europe is heroin, but also the abuse of methadone,
buprenorphine and fentanyl. In West and North Africa, and Middle
East the main threat is the abuse of tramadol and prescribed
medicines containing opioids. Approx. 60 States have reported the
misuse of benzodiazepines as their main drug abuse problem.
3) Kratom emerged as a popular herbal based NPS
In some of the States it is very easy to buy a Kratom contained
product. People in the United States who consume opioids take
Kratom to get a relaxing effect like opium. In 2016, 500 tons of
Kratom was prevented into the country that was three times the
total of the the year before.

b. Drug Market Development

1) Marihuana remains the most abused drug in the world.
It is estimated that 192 million people in the world abused
marihuana at least once in the year 2016. Total seizures of drugs are
as follows: Marihuana 6,313 tons (leaves/resin) ; Opium 658 tons;
Shabu 158 tons; Heroin & Morfine 156 tons; Pharmaceutical opioids
87 tons; Amphetamines 70 tons; 22 tons of NPS, and Ecstasy 14
tons.
2) Africa and Asia have become the center of cocaine trafficking and
consumption.
Death cases related to cocaine abuse in the United States have
increased to more than 10,000 in the year 2016. The largest increase
of cocaine seizures occurred in Asia and Africa, three times the
seizures in the previous year; particularly in South Asia total seizures
increased 10 times. In Africa seizures of cocaine increased twice the
total of the previous year, and ten times in North Africa.
3) A wider spread occurred in the Trafficking and abuse of synthetic
drugs, while the shabu market is increasingly flourishing.
East And South- East Asia, including North America remain the
2 main trafficking regions of shabu in the world. In the United States
shabu is the second serious threat next to Heroin. Based on a
qualitative evaluation on the trend of consumption, production and
total seizures a conclusion was made that the shabu market in East
and South-East Asia, and in Oceania, has expanded. During several
years amphetamines have dominated the drug market in the Middle
East, Central and West Europe. However, the increase in seizures
lately in North Africa and Central America indicates also an increase
in other regions.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 2

 4) Growth and Development of new drug types
A total of 803 NPS was reported in the period 2009 – 2017,
although the overall seizures of NPS in 2016 indicated a decrease.

c. Susceptibility of Particular Groups

1) Several States can not yet afford to provide adequate treatment

and health services to drug abusers/addicts.
Only 1 from 6 drug addicts received drug treatment in 2016.
Injecting drug abusers have the highest risk, and only 79 States
implement the needle program and opioid substitution therapy.
From incoming data only 34 States provide a program in HIV testing.

2) Trend of Drug abuse and the highest consequence belong to the

younger generation
Based on a survey conducted on the general population drug
abuse among the younger generation ranks higher than in the group
of an older age. The earlier age (12-14 years) till the later age (15-17
years) have a tremendously high risk in the start of drug abuse, and
the highest escalation of drug abuse occurs among the youth in the
group of 18-25 years. Marihuana is the most abused drug. Ecstasy,
shabu, cocaine, ketamine, LSD, and GBH are frequently abused by
the youth in big cities while street children tend to abuse inhalants.

3) Attention is needed on the group of older age

In most of the western countries, a rapid escalation of drug
abuse is seen in particular in the age group of 40 and above,
particularly among those who at their younger age have ever
consumed drugs. Rehabilitation services for older aged people need
special treatment, but only a few of these programs accommodate
those special needs. There is an increasingly escalation in the death
rate among the older age people (50 years and above) due to drug
abuse, and 75% is caused by the abuse of opioids.

4) There is a distinct pattern of Drug abuse among women.

Women abuse more opioids and sedatives. Depression and
anxiety as a result of their childhood trauma, discrimination, family
problems, etc. are the main causes women take drugs to calm
themselves down. They are more susceptible being affected to HIV,
Hepatitis C and other contagious diseases, one-fifth (1/5) of the
total world injecting drug abusers are women.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 3

II. Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking At National Level.
Based on a research conducted by the National Narcotics Board (BNN) in
collaboration with the Center of Health Research, University of Indonesia, in
2017 entitled National Survey on the Prevalence of Drug Abuse, the projection
rate of drug abusers in Indonesia has reached 1.77%, or a total of 3,367,154 in
the age group of 10-59 years have ever used drugs in the past year (current
users).
Based on 2017 survey on drug abuse among workers, the Prevalence Rate
of Drug Abuse for the past year (current users) among workers, from 2009, 2012,
and 2017 has decreased from 4.7 (2012) to 2.9 (2017). Drug abuse for male
workers from 2009 to 2017 has significantly decreased. However for female
workers, in 2009 to 2012 has increased althoug in 2017 has significantly
decreased.
Based on data from the BNN Deputy of Rehabilitation 18,077 drug abusers
have received Therapy and Rehabilitation throughout Indonesia in the year
2017. Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia reported 9,280 AIDS cases, the
majority of cases in the age group of 30-39 years (3,294 cases) or
35.49%,followed by 30,49% in age group 20-29 years (2,830 cases).
Based on classification of cases the year 2017 indicates an overall
increasing trend of drug abuse, with the highest increase in cases of psychotropic
substances (137.14%), from 1,540 cases in 2016 to 3,652 cases in 2017.
As regard the classification of drug suspects in 2017, an escalation of
135.85% is seen in the trend of suspects related to narcotics and psychotropic
substances with the highest increase in cases of psychotropic substances, from
1,771 suspects in 2016 to 4,177 in 2017.
In relation with marihuana seizures in 2017 the highest percentage of
increase occurred in marihuana herbs discovered in the year 2016 with a
percentage of 990.93%. From 13.89 tons maarihuana herbs discovered in 2016
to 151.53 tons in 2017. However, seizures of marihuana trees went down to
90.63%; from a seizure of 2,196,418 trees in 2016 to 205,708 in 2017. In the
group of narcotics the highest increase in percentage is seen in seizures of
ecstasy 83.25%, from 1,694,970 tablets seized in 2016 to 3,106,009 in 2017;
followed by shabu seizures with an increase of 183.34%, from 2,631.07 kg in
2016 to 7,454.78 kg in 2017.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 4

I. Survey on Drug Abuse Among Workers, 2017.
1. Introduction.
a. Background
Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking in Drugs have been growing
in the past 4 years (UNODC, 2016). World Drugs Report informs that
a quarter of the world population between 15-64 years, or 1 from 20
adults have consumed one drug in 2014. Approx. 207,400 death
cases in the world were affected by drug abuse1. This situation
requires every State to be alert against drug abuse and illicit
trafficking in drugs. The target of drug abuse, or the drug market has
already covered almost all ages and professions, the majority of
which is the productive age that belong to students, unemployed as
well as workers.
There is a great population of workers in Indonesia. Even a
small number of these workers who are affected by drug abuse,
whatever its potensial ability is, shall cause an immense problem of
drug abuse. Data from the Center of Statistics (BPS) indicate that,
based on the 2010-2035 population projection on the total
population of Indonesia in February 2017, the estimated number of
population is 260.82 million2. The total number of work power in
February 2017 is 131.55 million, indicating an increase if compared
to the work power in February 2016 (127.67 million). The total
working population in February is 124.54 million, while 7.01 million
are open unemployed (BPS 2017) 3. In February 2017 the percentage
of informal workers is 58.35%, while in the formal sector only
41.65%. In detail, the total number of informal workers is 72.67
million, while in the formal sector 51.87 million4. The large number
of formal workers is potentially open to various work conditions that
may cause pressure and stress. A number of workers try to
overcome these pressures and stress by taking drugs or other
addictive substances.

1
World Drugs Report Tahun 2016. UNODC
2
Data of Indonesia Work Force in August 2016, BPS
3
Open unemployment are those who don’t have a job and are currently seeking.
4
https://www.cnnindonesia.com/ekonomi/20170505134241-92-212545/geliat-sektor-informal-
dongkrak-angkatan-kerja/7 Mei 2017, Yuliyanna Fauzi , CNN Indonesia
Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 5
 Data on apprehension of drug cases indicate that drug
trafficking among workers is continuously increasing from year to
year. Based on drug classification of drug cases in 2015 there is a
trend in the overall increase of drug cases, namely, 23.58% for
narcotics, from 23,134 cases in 2014 to 28,588 in 2015.5 The
increase of cases is seen in the group of civil servants (PNS), from
362 cases (2014) to 453 cases (2015); in the private sector from
18,511 cases (2014) to 20,778 cases (2015); entrepreneurs from
1,430 cases (2014) to 14,357 cases (2015), farmers from 1,551 cases
(2014) to 1,869 cases (2015), and labor from 4,570 cases (2014) to
5,283 cases (2015).
The number of boarding drug abuse workers is estimated at
963 thousand to 1 million, or those non-boarding approx. 1.8 to 2
million. The prevalence rate among boarding workers are
higher (6.8%) than non-boarding workers (2.1%) (BNN & PPKUI,
2011).

Table 1.1. Estimation of Total Drug Abusers and Past Year Prevalence Rate Based on
Gender and Group Classification, 2017
TOTAL DRUG ABUSERS
GROUP UNDER MALE FEMALE PREVALENCE %
NO.
SURVEY MINI- MAXI- MINI- MAXI- MA FE-
MUM MUM MUM MUM LE MALE
1. Boarding Workers 829,826 924,826 134,209 148,816 9.0 2.7
2. Non-boarding 1,582,573 1,743,573 314,445 347,340 2,9 0.9
Workers
3. Boarding Students 254,777 254,777 54,623 59,935 11.1 4.2
4. Non-boarding 464,440 510,909 126,405 141,798 4.7 1.5
Students
5. Women Sex 0 0 63,191 69,719 - 27.6
Workers
6. Street Children 12,671 13,802 1,949 2,187 17.4 10.8
7. Household 176,640 203,393 63,359 70,361 1.2 0.2
The above data indicate that the drug prevalence among
workers from 2009 – 2012 remains relatively stagnant at 5%. Drug
prevalence is higher among: young males (<30 years), single or
divorced, living with a friend, and among females with a high
income. Workers in the sectors of construction, service, and mining.
The most popular drug consumed among workers are Marihuana,
ATS, and pharmaceutical drugs. The drug prevalence is relatively
small among those who have been offered to drugs, but tends to
increase almost twice as high. Workers in the mining field,
construction and services are more susceptible to drug abuse than
workers in other sectors. Discotheques, pubs, karaoke and schools
or campuses are places where of drug trafficking mostly occur. (BNN
& PPKUI, 2012).

5
BNN, Ringkasan Jurnal Data Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Penyalahgunaan dan Peredaran Gelap
Narkoba (P4GN) Tahun 2015 Edisi Tahun 2016
Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 6
 From 3 surveys conducted by BNN drug abuse among workers
have been actually identified. The first survey conducted in 2004
uncovered that 13% of formal workers who have ever taken drugs
are frequent visitors of open entertainment centers, and 27%
workers of closed entertainment centers. It was also discovered
that 15% of informal workers are found at open entertainment
centers, while 38% at closed entertainment centers (BNN and
PT. MATRIX, 2004). The second survey was conducted in 2009
applying another method. Outcomes of the survey indicate that the
prevalence of drug abuse in the group of ever used is 13%, while 5%
among those who continue taking drugs in the past year. The
highest risk for current users (past year use) is in the sector of
construction (10%), and the least risk in the processing industry (3%).
2% of 5% current users have ever consumed more than one
drug (polydrugs) (BNN & PPKUI, 2009). The third survey was
conducted in 2012, indicating 13% of drug prevalence among ever
used drug abusers, and 5% among current users. The highest drug
prevalence was found in the sector of social services (9.8%), as a
result of contribution from the sub-sector of health (BNN & PPKUI,
2012).
The presence of vulnerability to drug trafficking is also
indicated by data related to arrests of drug cases among workers. In
the private sector a raise is seen in the number of drug suspects,
from 20,339 (2015) to 23,792 (2016). In the group of entrepreneurs
from 14,074 (2015) to 16,097 (2016), among farmers from 1,856
(2015) to 2,060 (2016), and among labour in crease form 5,209
(2015) to 6,323 (2016)6.
Study results in other States show that the range of drug abuse
among workers are almost the same, i.e. 14% related to past
year drug use in the United States (Frone, 2006). Bywood, Pidd
and Roche (2006) reported approx. 17% of Australian workers
take drugs, approx. 10-13% of England workers take drugs in the
past year in the past year (Verstraete, 2011). This condition
illustrates that drug abuse among workers is real, and continues to
progress.

6
Jurnal Data Puslitdatin Years 2017. Badan Narkotika Nasional
Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 7
 The outcome of a survey by PPKUI-BNN in 2012 shows that a
greater part of companies have not yet a special policy on dangerous
addictive substances. Although the basic policy of the P4GN
program was launched in 2005 through the issue of Minister of
Manpower and Transmigration Regulation Number 11 of the year
2005 on the implementation of eduation within the work
environment, but this regulation has not been implemented by all
companies for various reasons, including that cases related to
addictive and dangerous substances among workers are only a few,
and P4GN is not a priority as there are still many more needs to be
fulfilled. Several companies prefer to prioritize in the socialization
of HIV/AIDS and prohibition of smoking within the work
environment.
A majority of companies admit that they are not cognizant of
this Minister of Manpower and Transmigration Regulation Number
11 of the year 2005. Drug prevention measures are issued by a
Management Decision on work discipline/general regulations. Only
one-third (33%) of companies have collaborated with other related
agencies in the P4GN program.
US Department of Manpower stated that the effect of drug
abuse on workers are related to health, productivity, problem in
decision making, troubled eyesight and hearing, including moral
problems.7 Abuse of medicines also ruins physical and mental
health. All these complications may lead to self insury or to others.
Consequently, the company/work environment has to encounter
with delayed work, inefficiency, and absence of workers, loss of time
and production due to dangerous accidents and damaged
equipment or other facilities.8 Drug abuse is also one of the risk
factors of work accidents (Lehman & Simpson, 1992); some of these
accidents are the Nimitz plane accident, train collition in Maryland,
spilled Exxon oil accident in Alaska (Norman et.al., 1990).
Due to the many cases, weak sanctions and serious impact
caused by drug abuse on workers, a survey was conducted on the
health behaviour of workers towards smoking, alcohol and
consumption of dangerous drugs with the purpose to monitor the
prevalence rate of health behavior.

7
Employee Drug-Free Workplace Education, Working Partners for an Alcohol- and Drug-Free Workplace
(ppt) Provided by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy U.S. Department of Labor.
(http://www.sapaa.com/resource/resmgr/workingPartners/employee-education.ppt)
8
Alcohol And Other Drugs In The Workplace : Guide To Developing A Workplace Alcohol And Other
Drugs Policy 2006
Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 8
 b. Aim
This study aims to obtain the number of workers who smoke,
consume alcohol and dangerous addictive substances in Indonesia.
1) Prevalence rate of smoking behavior, consumption of alcohol
and addictive substances among workers.
2) Obtain an illustration on the pattern of consumption,
trafficking, and location of illicit trafficking of addictive
substances among workers.
3) ‘Obtain information on workers’ understanding, attitude and
their acquiscience of the program.

2. Definition and Meaning.

a. Definition of Worker
There are several definitions for worker. Some divide workers
according to formal and informal worker (Mantra, I.B., 2003). A
formal worker is a person who works for another person or agency,
who receives money, and/or goods as a wage, or an entrepreneur
who employs permanent Manpower without paying attention on
the presence of any activities. (Mantra, I.B., 2003). Examples of
formal workers are civil servants, Armed Forces/Police, private
sector worker, factory worker, etc. Informal workers are divided into
several classifications. First classification, a person who runs his own
business without any help from other people, e.g. becak(tricycle)
driver, taxi driver, and Manpowerer. Second classification, a person
who runs his own business and is assisted by a family member,
temporary Manpowerer, e.g. a stall owner, a walking vendor, or
farmer. Third classification, workers without getting wages, e.g. a
child helping the mother in selling goods, a family helper, or non-
family worker without any pay. Article 1 point 3 of Law Number 13
of the year 2003 on Manpower regulates that a worker is a person
who works by getting wages, or gets payment in any other form.
This study focuses on formal workers.
b. Standard Classification of Indonesia Business (KBLI)
Standard Classification of Indonesia Business/KBLI is a
standard classification of economic activities in Indonesia. KBLI was
composed with the purpose to provide a set of classifications on
Indonesia’s economic activities to be used for uniformity in collation,
processing, and presentation of data in the respective economic
activities, and for use in the study on the economic condition or
behavior of the respective economic activities. Through this
uniformity one can make comparisons of data on interim, inter-
regional as well as international economic activities.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 9

 Until today the Central Statistics Agency (BPS) has published
five versions of business classifications. The first three versions are
Classification of Indonesia Business (KLUI) published consecutively in
1977, 1983 and 1990, and is based on the International Standard
Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) 2nd Revision,
1968. The two following versions are the Standard Classification of
Indonesia Business (KBLI) consecutively published in 1997 and 2000,
and its composition based on the International Standard
Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) 3rd revision, 1990.
KBLI 2000 has been completed and becomes KBLI 2005. On the
whole, the structure, system of coding of KBLI 2005 does not differ
from the KBLI 2000 structure, likewise with the naming of its
structure. KBLI 2005 and KBLI 2000 apply a 5-digit code, and one digit
is the alphabetical code called cathegory; The cathegory code can be
converted into a one-digit code number of KLUI 1990 (business
sector).
The following is the Standard classification of Indonesia
Business/KBLI 2005 according to sectors:
1) Agriculture, Plantation, Persecution, and Forestry
2) Fishery;
3) Mining and Excavation;
4) Processing industry;
5) Electricity, Gas and Water;
6) Construction;
7) Wholesale Trade and Retail;
8) Provision of accommodation and Provision of Food and
Beverages;
9) Transportation, Warehousing and Communication;
10) Financial intermediary;
11) Real estate, renting business and company services;
12) Government administration, land matters and social security;
13) Educational services;
14) Health services and social activities;
15) Social services, social culture and other personal services;
16) Personal household services;
17) Other international and extra-international bodies;
18) Other indistinctive activities.
It is very important to understand the KBLI concept as a base
for the mapping process and the making of sampling structure in the
study. The basic principle of KBLI is used at the initial identification
for the sampling. However, due to limited access to data, and the
easy implementation in the field to obtain the general list of
companies, grouping of companies refers to the 1990 KLUI that only
has 9 sectors of classification. These sectors are:

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 10

 1) Agriculture/Plantation/Forestry/Persecution/and Fishery;
2) Mining and Excavation;
3) Construction;
4) Trade/Restaurant and Accomodation Services;
5) Transportation/Warehousing and Communication;
6) Financial Institutions/Real Estate/Rental & Company Services;
7) Social and Personal Services;
8) Processing Industry;
9) Electricity – Gas – Fresh Water.
c. Drugs (Narkoba)
Narkoba is a shortened from for Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs or NAPZA (Naarcotics, Psychotropic Substances and Addictive
Substances) (Mitra Bintibmas, 2005). Information on these drugs are
extended as substances that endanger human health. There are
many types of psychotropic substances, some are dangerous, and
some are used for medication, and they have addictive qualities.
(Hawari, 2001:19).
Law Number 35 of the year 2009 defines narcotics as a
substance or medicine either of herbal or non-herbal origin,
synthetic or semi-synthetic, and can drop consciousness, loss of
sensation, lessen or loss of pain, and cause addiction. Based on the
law narcotics are classified as follows:
1) Table I Narcotics.
Table I narcotics are only used for development of
science and is highly potential to cause addiction. The types of
narcotics in Table I are:
a) A plant called Papaver Somniferum L including all parts
of the plant and its fruit and straw, not included its seeds.
b) Raw opium, its self-coagulated resin taken from the fruit
of Papaver Somniferum L that needs only some simple
processing for the wrapping and transportation without
any thought of its morphine content.
c) Cooked opium that consists of:
(1) Candu, a product obtained from raw opium
through a series of processes by dissolving,
warming and fermentation with or without adding
other substances, with the purpose to extract into
a solid matter.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 11

 (2) Jicing, residue of candu after being smoked,
without any attention whether the candu is mixed
with leaves or other materials.
(3) Jicingko, a product obtained from the processing of
jicing.
d) Coca plant, from all genus of Erythroxylon of the
Erythroxylaceae family, including its fruit and seeds
e) Coca leaf, either fresh or dried, or in powder form from
all genus of Erythroxylon of the Erythroxylaceae family
that directly produces cocaine or through chemical
process.
f) Raw cocaine, all. products obtained from the coca leaf
that can directly be processed to produce cocaine.
g) Cocaine, methyl ester-1-bensoil exgonine.
h) Marihuana plant, all plants from the genus cannabis and
all its parts including the seeds, fruit, straw, and all its
processed products from the plant or its parts, including
its resin and hashish.
2) Table II Narcotics
Narcotics in Table II are narcotics used for medication or
therapy, and/or for scientific purposes; they are potential to
cause addiction. Narcotics in Table II are:
a) Morphine, a white powder substance used to ease the
extreme pain from cancer, operation, etc.
b) Fentanil, as a common anaesthetic
c) Pethidine, Frequently used for pregnant mothers during
delivery. It has the same effect as morphine
3) Table III Narcotics
This group of narcotics are drugs frequently used in
medication and therapy, and/or scientific purposes. These
drugs have minor potetials to cause addiction.
a) Codeine, found in opium or a synthetic of morphine in
the foRestaurant of white powder or tablet.
b) Ethyl morphine, has almost the same qualities as
codeine.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 12

 Law Number 5 of the year 1997 states that psychotropic
substances is a substance or drug, either natural or synthetic, not a
narcotic, has psychoactive qualities through a selective affect on the
central nerves system, that may cause a particular change in the
mental activities and behavior of a person. Misuse of psychotropic
substances may result in addiction syndrome when used without
due medical supervision. Misuse of the substance can not only
haRestaurant the abuser, but also affects the social, economic and
national stability and security, and is a threat to the nation’s and
people’s existence.
Psychotropic substance have potential to cause addiction
syndrome as stated in Paragraph (1). Psychotropic substances are
divided into several groupings:
1) Group I Psychotropic substances
This group is only used for scientific purposes, not for
medication or therapy. They have very strong potential to
result in addiction syndrome. Some of these substances are:
a) MDMA (Methylene Dioxy Meth Amphethamine), or Inex
which is derived from amphetamine, a white to
yellowish powder, has strong hallucinogic qualities.
Other names used are ADAM Essence, XTC, etc. It is in
the form of a brown or white tablet, pink and yellow
transparent capsule. It is swallowed with mineral water.
Physical effects are: sweating, dry mouth, stiff jaws,
increase in heart rate, blood pressure and body
temperature. Physical effects experienced are:
sweating, dry mouth watery eyes, excess energy and
loss of appetite. Some also experience nausea and
vomiting, and feeling insecure. Its psychological effects
are: feeling relax, happy, warm, strong and
understanding each other. High dosage consumption
may cause in stress, panic, feeling `confused and
insomnia. Overdose of the drug may cause hallucination,
panic, vomiting, diarrhea and spasms.
b) Shabu, another name: Ubas. It belongs to methyl
amphetmine, and is derived from amphetamine. It looks
like monosodium glutamate (vetsin), a white crystalline
powder that easily dissolves in water. It was originally a
synthetic Stimulant, but has a stronger and faster effect
than ecstasy. It can speed up the body’s activity, increase
heart rate dan blood pressure, dry mouth and always
sweating. Its psychological effects are feeling happy,
increase of energy, feeling healthy, feeling powerful and
self confident, increase in concentration, decrease in
appetite, not feeling sleepy and hallucinations appear.
Consumption of shabu can be traced from a person’s
urine 2-4 days after the intake. Symptoms of addiction
are easily changing moods, anxiety, quick anger,
confused and paranoid.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 13

 c) Psylobine and psylosine, easily found in fungus, and in
Indonesia it is found in a cow’s manure.
d) LSD or Lisergic Acid Diethylamine, comes from the ergot
fungus that grows on the white and black wheat. It has
a very strong hallucinogic effect, creates perception
problems in the mind, voice, hearing. LSD causes
physical and psychological addiction, and tolerance.
Generally LSD is found in tablet form or sticker placed
under the tongue.
e) Meskaline (peyote), comes from a cactus plant growing
in North-West America, and brings a physical and
psychological addiction.
2) Group II Psychotropic Substances
Substances in this group have medical qualities and is
used for therapy dan/or scientific purposes. They have also
strong porential to cause addiction syndrome. In this group
are amphetamines, methamphetamines, methequalona,
methylfenidat, etc.
3) Group III Psychotropic Substances
Substances of group III are used for medication, and/or
frequently used for scientific purposes. They have moderate
potential for addiction syndrome. In this group are
amobarbital, flunitrazepam, kathine, etc.
4) Group IV Psychotropic Substances
In group IV are substance used for medication and are
frequently used for therapy and/or scientific purposes. They
have light(weak) potential for addiction syndrome In this
group are barbital, bromazepam, diazepam, estazolam,
phenobarbital, klobazam, lorazepam, nitrazepam, etc.
The emergence of New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) in
these last few years with potentials to endanger the community are
not under international control. These substances have increased
addiction, many people have been taken to hospital, and even
caused death. These psychoactive substances are frequently
called a “legal” alternative in the drug market as they are not under
risk.9

9
(New Psychoactive Substances: Overview of Trends, Challenges and Legal Approaches, Commission
on Narcotic Drugs Fifty-Ninth Session, Vienna, 14-22 March 2014)
Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 14
 NPS are known in the market by the names “designer drugs”,
“legal highs”, “herbal high”, “bath salts”, “research chemicals”,
“laboratory reagents”. To clarify thie issue of terminology UNODC
only uses the name “New Psychoactive Substances (NPS)” and are
defined as “abuse of drugs, either pure or mixed, neither under
control of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, nor 1971
Convention on Psychotropic Substances, but cause a threat to
community health. The term “new” does not always refer to the new
inventions – as some of the NPS were made synthetic for the first
time about 40 years ago – but related to the new substances
emerging in the drug market and not listed in the above Convention.
Main Classification of NPS presented by UNODC (United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) and National Narcotics Board
(BNN):
1) Aminoindanes [5,6-methylenedioxy-2-aminoindane (MDAI)]
2) Synthetic Cannabinoid (APINACA, JWH-018)
3) Synthetic Cathinones [4-methylethcathinone (4-MEC) and α-
pyrrolidino-pentiophenone (α –PVP)]
4) Ketamine & Phencyclidine-type substances [methoxetamine
(MXE)]
5) Phenethylamines (2C-E and 25H-NBOMe)
6) Piperazines [benzylpiperazine (BZP) and 1-(3-chlorophenyl)
piperazine (mCPP)]
7) Plant-Based Substances [kratom (mitragyna speciosa Korth),
salvia divinorum and khat (Catha edulis)]
8) Tryptamines [methyltryptamine (AMT)]
9) Other substances [1,3-dimethylamylamine (DMAA)]
In 2016 BNN published in its website the List of NPS
substances identified in Indonesia.10 Hereunder are the
substances:
Table 1.2.List of NPS Substances Identified in Indonesia

NO. CHEMICAL NAME ( IUPAC) GENERAL NAME TYPE

1. 2-methylamino-1-(3,4- Methylone (MDMC) Derivative of
methylenedioxyphenyl)propan-1- Cathinone
one
2. (RS)-2-methylamino-1-(4- Mephedrone (4-MMC) Derivative of
methylpenhyl)propan-1-one Cathinone
3. (±)-1-phenyl-2- Pentedrone Derivative of
(methylamino)pentan-1-one Cathinone

10
Badan Narcotics Nasional. List of NPS Identified in Indonesia. 31 January 2016
http://lab.bnn.go.id/nps_alert_system/12.%20Lampiran%20zat%20NPS%20terdeteksi%20di%20Ind
onesia.php
Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 15
 NO. CHEMICAL NAME ( IUPAC) GENERAL NAME TYPE
4. (RS)-2-ethylamino-1-(4- 4-MEC Derivative of
methylphenyl)propan-1-one Cathinone
5. (RS)-1-(benzo[d][1,3]dioxol-5-yl)-2- MDPV Derivative of
(pyrrolidin-1-yl)pentan-1-one Cathinone
6. (RS)-2-ethylamino-1-phenyl- Ethcathinone (N- Derivative of
propan-1-one ethylcathinone) Cathinone
7. (RS)-1-(4-methylphenyl)-2-(1- MPHP Derivative of
pyrrolidinyl)-1-hexanone Cathinone
8. (1-pentyl-1H-indol-3-yl)-1- JWH-018 Synthetic
naphthalenyl-methanone Cannabinoid
9. (1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indol-3- XLR-11 Synthetic
yl)2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)- Cannabinoid
methanone
10. N,N-2-dimethyl-1-phenylpropan-2- DMA Derivative of
amine (Dimethylamphetamine) Phenethylamine
11. 5-(2-aminopropyl)benzofuran 5-APB Derivative of
phenethylamine
12. 6-(2-aminopropyl)benzofuran 6-APB Derivative of
Phenethylamine
13. 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)-N-methyl- PMMA Derivative of
propan-2-amine Phenethylamine
14. 2-(4-Bromo-2,5- 2C-B Derivative of
dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine Phenethylamine
15. 1-(4-chloro-2,5-dimethoxy- DOC Derivative of
phenyl)propan-2-amine Phenethylamine
16. 2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)- 25I-NBOMe Derivative of
N-[(2- Phenethylamine
methoxypehyl)methyl]ethanamine
17. 2-(4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)- 25B-NBOMe Derivative of
N-[(2- Phenethylamine
methoxypehyl)methyl]ethanamine
18. 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)- 25C-NBOMe Derivative of
N-[(2- Phenethylamine
methoxypehyl)methyl]ethanamine
19. Catha edulis mengandung Khat Plant mengandung Cathinone dan
cathinone dan cathine Cathinone dan Cathine Cathine
20. 5-fluoro AKB48 5-fluoro AKB 48 Synthetic
Cannabinoid
21. MAM 2201 MAM 2201 Synthetic
Cannabinoid
22. 1-benzofuran-4-yl-propan-2-amine 4 APB Derivative of
Phenethylamine
23. 1-Benzylpiperazine BZP Derivative of
Piperazine
24. 1-(3-Chlorophenyl)piperazine mCPP Derivative of
Piperazine
25. 1-(3- TFMPP Derivative of
Trifluoromethylphenyl)piperazine Piperazine
26. 2-(1H-indol-3-yl)-1-methyl- α-MT Derivative of
ethylamine Tryptamine

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 16

 NO. CHEMICAL NAME ( IUPAC) GENERAL NAME TYPE
27. Mitragyna speciosa contains Kratom contains Plant, plantlike
mitragynine and speciogynine mitragynine and powder
speciogynine
28. 2-(2-chlorophenyl)2- Ketamine Ketamine
(methylamino)cyclohexan-1-one
29. (RS)2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2- Methoxetamin Derivative of
(ethylamino)cyclohexanone Ketamine
30. 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N- Ethylone (bk- Derivative of
ethylchatinone MDEA,MDEC) Cathinone
31. 4-methyl buphedrone Buphedrone Derivative of
Cathinone
32. 5-methoxy N,N- 5-MeO-MiPT Derivative of
methylisopropyltryptamine Tryptamine
33. (1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indol-3- FUB-144 Synthetic
yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl) Cannabinoid
methanone
34. N-[(1S)-1-(aminocarbonyl)-2- AB-CHMINACA Synthetic
methylpropyl)]-1- Cannabinoid
(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indazole-3-
carboxamide
35. N-[(1S)-1-(aminocarbonyl)-2- AB-FUBINACA Synthetic
methylpropyl]-1-[(4- Cannabinoid
fluorophenyl)methyl]-1H-indazole-
3-carboxamide
36. Naphthalen-1-yl-(-4- CB 13 Synthetic
pentyloxynaphthalen-1-yl) Cannabinoid
methanone
37. 1-(4-Chlorophenyl)-2- 4-chloro metchatinone Derivative of
(methylamino)propan-1-one Cathinone
38. Methyl 2-({1-[(4- FUB-AMB Synthetic
fluorophenyl)methyl]-1H-indazole- Cannabinoid
3-carbonyl}amino)-3-
methylbutanoate
39. N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan- AB-PINACA Synthetic
2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3- Cannabinoid
carboxamide
40. [1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazol-3- THJ-2201 Synthetic
yl](naphthalen-1-yl)methanone Cannabinoid
41. 1-naphthalenyl(1-pentyl-1H- THJ-018 Synthetic
indazol-3-yl)-methanone Cannabinoid
42. N-(1-Amino-3,3-dimethyl-1- ADB-FUBINACA Synthetic
oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)- Cannabinoid
1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
43. N-(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1- ADB-CHMINACA Synthetic
oxobutan-2-yl)-1- Cannabinoid
(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indazole-3-
carboxamide
44. methyl 2-{[1-(cyclohexylmethyl)- MDMB-CHMICA Synthetic
1H-indol-3-yl]foRestaurantamido}- Cannabinoid
3,3-dimethylbutanoate

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 17

 NO. CHEMICAL NAME ( IUPAC) GENEERAL NAME TYPE
45. Methyl (S)-2-[1-(5-fluoropentyl)- 5 - Fluoro ADB Synthetic
1H-indazole-3-carboxamido]-3,3- cannabinoid
dimethylbutanoate
46. (±)-1-(4-methylphenyl)-2- Benzedron Derivative of
(benzylamino)propan-1-one cathinone
47. 3-Methoxy-2-(methylamino)-1-(4- MEXEDRON Synthetic
methylphenyl)propan-1-one cathinone
48. 1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2- PENTYLONE synthetic
(methylamino)pentan-1-one cathinone
49. 1-(2H-1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2- N-ETHYLPENTYLONE synthetic
(ethylamino)pentan-1-one cathinone
50. (1-Butyl-1H-indol-3- JWH-073 synthetic
yl)(naphthalen-1-yl)methanone cannabinoid
51. (4-methylnaphthalen-1-yl)(1- JWH-122 synthetic
pentyl-1H-indol-3-yl)methanone cannabinoid
52. 2-(4-iodo-2,5- 2C-I Derivative of
dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine phenethylamine
53. 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2- 4-Chloro-ethcathinone synthetic
(ethylamino)propan-1-one cathinone
Source : BNN (2016)

3. Survey Method.
a. Survey Plan
The study design was selected by conducting a cross sectional
survey on the target group of workers. A qualitative and quantitative
approach, and desk review were used for data collection. The survey
on workers shall be done through the quantitative and qualitative
approaches. For the quantitative approach data collection is done by
asking the workers to fill a structured questionnaire and guided by
the field officer. The questionnaire is completed together at a certain
location provided by the company. Managers or informants
representing the company are to fill a semi-structured questionnaire
to illustrate the situation within the company.
The qualitative aproach is aimed to dig in deeper and clarify
the various problems/issues, also to clarify the findings of the
qualitative study. An in-depth interview is done for the qualitative
approach for company managers/representatives (1 person per
province), representating workers from the group of drug abusers or
non-drug abusers (1 person per province), from the office of
manpower at province or regency/city level (1 person per province),
and from the Province BNN (BNNP) represented by 1 person per
province.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 18

 b. Study Location, Range of Samples and Method of Samples
Selection
Study location covers all provinces in Indonesia, a total of 34
provinces. In each province 2 regencies/cities are selected totaling
64 regencies/cities as samples of the study location. Field data
collection is done from August to September 2017. Details of the
selected study location is shown in the Table 1.3. hereunder:
Table 1.3. List of Selected Cities and Regencies for Study Location in 34 Provinces.

SELECTED REGENCIES
NO. PROVINCE SELECTED CITIES
(KABUPATEN)
1. Aceh Banda Aceh Kab. Bireun
2. North Sumatra Medan Kab. Serdang Bedagai
3. Riau Pekanbaru Kab. Kampar
4. Riau Islands Batam Kab. Bintan
5. Bangka Belitung Pangkal Pinang Kab. Bangka
6. West Sumatera Padang Kab. Tanah Datar
7. Jambi Jambi Kab. Batanghari
8. Bengkulu Bengkulu Kab. Bengkulu Selatan
9. South Sumatera Palembang Kab. Ogan Komering Ilir
10. Lampung Bandar Lampung Kab. Tanggamus
11. DKI Jakarta Jakarta Barat Jakarta Utara
12. West Java Bandung Kab. Garut
13. Banten Serang Kab. Tangerang
14. Central Java Semarang Kab. Kudus
15. DI Yogyakarta Yogyakarta Kab. Bantul
16. East Java Surabaya Kab. Malang
17. Bali Denpasar Kab. Gianyar
18. West Nusa Tenggara Mataram Kab. Lombok Timur
19. East Nusa Tenggara Kupang Kab. Timor Tengah Selatan
20. West Kalimantan Pontianak Kab. Pontianak
21. East Kalimantan Samarinda Kab. Kutai Kartanegara
22. South Kalimantan Banjarmasin Kab. Banjar
23. Central Kalimantan Palangkaraya Kab. Kotawaringin Timur
24. North Sulawesi Manado Kab. Minahasa
25. Central Sulawesi Palu Kab. Donggala
26. South Sulawesi Makasar Kab. Barru
27. S.E. Sulawesi Kendari Kab. Kolaka
28. Gorontalo Gorontalo Kab. Gorontalo Utara
29. West Sulawesi Mamuju Kab. Majene
30. Maluku Ambon Maluku Tengah
31. North Maluku Ternate Halmahera Tengah
32. West Papua Kota Sorong Kab. Sorong
33. Papua Jayapura Kab. Jayapura
34. North Kalimantan Tarakan Kab. Bulungan

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 19

 The range of samples for the survey on workers is calculated
by taking reference to Lemeshow et.al formula using the data
assumption of workers in 2012, with the statistical assumption that:
the estimation of one proportion is 95% realization, 5% reliability,
deff = 2. The minimum number of the sample calculation is 475 and
rounded off to 500 for regency/city location. Since in each province
there are 2 regencies/cities, the range of samples for this study is
estimated at approx. 1,000 respondents in one study location. For
each regency/city 2 sectors are selected, 1 sector representing the
lowest prevalence of drug abuse and the other the with highest
prevalence of drug abuse. In one sector two sub-sectors are
selected. In each sub-sector stratification of a work unit is done
(institution/company/office) that is based on the number of workers
in each work unit. 5 companies are selected in each stratum
representing each randomly selected sub-sector. In each selected
company the minimum of 20 workers are taken at random. Through
this process there will be 1,000 samples of respondents (2 sectors x
2 sub-sectors x 5 companies x 20 workers x 2 recencies/cities =
1,000). A detailed representation is shown in the table below.

Table 1.4. Sample Distribution of the Quantitative Study by Province

NO. DETAILS CITY REGENCY
1. City/Regency 1 1
2. Sector (Highest and lowest prevalence) 2 2
3. Sub-Sector 2 2
4. Companies 20 20
5. Workers in a Company 25 25
Total Workers 500 500

The type of study, method of collection and total samples in

each province are illustrated in the Table below:

Table 1.5. Research, Method of Collection and Total Samples in each Province
SAMPLE
NO. STUDY TARGET METHOD COM
WORKERS TOTAL
PANY
1. Quantitative Workers Questionnai 40 25 1,000
re workers
Company Semi- 40 40
structured companies
2. Qualitative Workers In-depth - 1 drug abuser 1 person
interview 1 non-drug
abuser 1 person
Company In-depth - 1 person 1 person
Manager interview
BNNP In-depth - 1 person 1 person
interview
Office In-depth - 1 person 1 person
TManpower interview
Province

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 20

 Companies are selected on 2 methods, verify the presence of
the company and adequate number of workers through the
following steps:
1) Verify the presence and willingness of the company.
a) Check whether the company uses Form 1 by phone or
visit its address (if by phone is impossible). Check the key
information on the company: company’s presence/no
presence; total workers (minimum 15 for the company
to be selected).
b) The company eligible for selection as sample should have
the minimum of 15 workers/employees. If less, the
company is dropped out and replaced by another in the
same sector or prevalence of drug abuse.
c) If the criteria is eligible, visit the company and ask for
permission/its willingness to do a survey by using Form
2. If the company rejects use Form 3.
d) This process should be done for each company till the
total number of 20 companies is completed.
2) Selelcting a company as sample (its criteria)
a) The company eligible for selection as sample should have
the minimum of 15 workers/employees.
b) The company has given its permission to do the survey.
c) If the company has 15 to 25 workers all workers can
become respondents. If the company has less, it can be
combined with another company of the same sector or
from the group with the same drug abuse prevalence.
c. Instruments and Data Collection
The Instrument to be developed for workers and companies
should be easily understood by respondents, as they have to answer
each question in the questionnaire. The questions designed for the
questionnaire should not be leaping or filter questions as the
method of filling is self-done. The purpose is to have the same time
for the filling of the instrument bydrug abusers and non-drug
abusers. This strategy has to be implemented to avoid any suspicion
among respondents from the group of drug abusers and non drug
abusers.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 21

 In general, questions for the workers consist of several parts:
1) Respondents’ characteristics (gender, age, education, marital
status, number of persons under care, status of domicile).
2) Occupation (duration, position in the company, type of work,
length of work time, income, work conditions, work stress,
pattern of work).
3) Smoking and alcohol (ever consumed, age, frequency of use in
the past year, in the past 30 days).
4) Knowledge and experience in the use of dangerous substances
(ever heard of, knowledge, source of information, ever used,
age, type of drug, frequency of use in the past year/past 30
days).
5) Behaviour of injecting drug use (ever used, age, needle
sharing, type of substance injected).
6) Drug trafficking (drug infected environment, offer drugs or
have been offered, easy access to drugs, condition of work
environment, have a drug abuser friend).
7) Sex behaviour (ever involved in sex, age, last time sex,
frequency of condom use, drug to increase sex libido).
8) Promotion and intervention program (general: ever
seen/involved in the drug program, source of information,
understanding the message, involved in the program,
organizer of the activities, effective media appraisal;
Company:program pressent, policy, sanction, urine test).
9) Rehabilitation (ever, when, type of rehabilitation).
10) Rate of truthfulness in replying the questions.
Questions aimed for companies:
1) Characteristics (type of company, number of workers/male-
female, number of management-worker)
2) Health program (program availability, type of program, time of
services)
3) Drug program (policy/regulations, program availability, type of
program, time of services, legal sanctions, impact on the
company’s output).
d. Data Analysis Framework.
The Epi-Info Fox base is used in the planning of the program
and data entry process. Data processing program shall use the SPSS
or Stata. To facilitate the process of data processing initially dummy
tables are made. Data analysis is directed to refer to frequency
distribution and cross tabulation of the related inter-variables. If
necessary, to take a statistical test to know the pattern or closeness
of relation of the variables. Besides, findings in the quantitative data
is supported by the qualitative study and by other sources through
the application of the triangulation analysis.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 22

 4. Company’s and Respondents’ Characteristics.
a. Company’s Response Rate.
In this year’s survey a decrease is seen in the company’s
participation compared to the same survey in 2012, from 69% to
53% in 2017, or a decrease of approx. 16%.
3,780 companies were contacted in 2017. But only 2,773 (73%)
were still in operation or its presence found, and 53% were willing
to be involved in the study. The reasons from companies that refuse
are: the survey will disturb the company’s productivity, they have to
get permission from the central office located in Jakarta. One of the
compamies is the central office, but its workers/employees do not
fulfill the requirement, or the reason to refuse is not explicitly
mentioned. Details of the outcome is shown in Table 1.6
From the initial sampling design which is based on results of an
economic sensus in 2006 it came to know that almost half the
number of companies did not exist anymore (bankrupt), or they
moved to another unknown location. To meet the required samples
mapping in the field has to be repeated to replace companies
according to its type based on data from the Office of Manpower in
the study location, namely at the regency/city level.
Table 1.6. Sector-Based Response Rate of the Drug Survey on Workers, 2017

NO. DETAILS TOTAL %

1. Number
Total contacts 3,780
No address/closed 1,007 27%
Number of companies found/in operation 2,773 73%
Total involved 1,472 53%
Total refused 1,301 47%
2. Reason for refusing the survey (n=2382)
Unwilling 432 33%
No response 869 67%

b. Demographic Characteristic and Respondents’ Occupation

There are 1,472 companies that are willing to join the survey,
spread in 9 sectors in 34 provinces of Indonesia. The largest number
of sectors is the sector of transportation/warehousing and
communication (476 companies). However, the average largest
number of workers in the survey is found in the sector of electricity,
gas and fresh water (355) workers in one company. And the average
lowest in number in the sector of social services and private
companies (58).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 23

 Proportion of the total number of male workers/employees of
all companies under survey is an average of 63%, and some decrease
in proportion than the 2012 survey (73%). Companies with the
largest proportion of male workers belongs to the sector of
transportation/warehousing and communication (83.6%), and the
lowest in the processing industry sector. There is a general
difference of characteristics between the proportion of male
workers of the 2012 and 2017 surveys. The majority of companies
under survey are private owned companies, and only 46% are
Government-owned companies (BUMN).
Table 1.7. Sector-based Distribution of Companies, Total Number and Workers,
Status of Ownership, Drug Survey on Workers, 2012 and 2017
AVERAGE GOVT.
TOTAL MALE
NUMBER OF OWNED/
NO. DETAILS COMPANIES (%)
WORKERS* BUMN
2012 2017 2012 2017 2012 2017 2012 2017
1. Agriculture/plantation/ 53 43 630 231 79.2 68.7 18.9 7.3
forestry/persecution/and
fishery
2. Mining and Excavation 29 26 189 104 89.7 83.0 17.2 20.0
3. Electricity, Gas and Fresh 66 193 202 335 80.3 60.1 81.8 5.5
Water
4. Construction 40 57 105 88 67.5 75.9 10.0 46.3
5. Trade/Restaurant and 199 114 146 73 66.3 83.6 2.0 13.9
Accomodation services
6. Transportation/Warehousing 76 476 132 87 71.1 65.9 39.5 4.2
and Communication
7. Financial Institutions/Real 151 79 163 62 70.9 74.6 42.4 21.3
Estate/Rental
Business&Company services
8. Social and Private services 175 281 197 58 66.7 62.1 74.9 34.5
9. Processing Industry 204 203 493 203 73.5 54.0 4.9 22.3
Total 993 1,472 258 131 71.3 63.1 31.4 16.3
*Average numberof workers/employees in one company
Source : Company Manager Respondent, 2012 & 2017

Total respondents under survey, (34,397) spread in 34

provinces is greater in number than the survey in 2012 (25,026),
Survey in 2009 (12,254) respondents. The proportion of male
workers is greater than female workers for the three surveys.
There is little difference in the proportion of education level
in the three surveys. The proportion of respondents in the 2017
survey with the education level of Junior High School and of a lower
level is smaller than the survey of 2009 and 2012, as such, the
proportion of Senior High School up to University level is greater. The
proportion of respondents’ average age is 29-31 years, which is the
same as in the previous survey. However, from the median number,
the survey of 2017 has a younger age than the surveys in 2009 and
2012, so the proportion of Senior High School and university the
survey in 2017 is greater. The average age proportion of respondents
is 29-31 years which is the same with the previous survey. However,
from the median number the survey in 2017 shows a younger age
compared to the surveys of 2009 and 2012.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 24

 Respondents with the single status both males and females are
of a greater proportion in the survey of 2017 than the surveys in
2009 and 2012. Likewise the proportion of respondents with a
marital status is relatively smaller than the surveys before which
illustrates a shift in the age of marriage among workers.
The majority of respondents live with the family/relative which
has relatively a larger proportion than the previous surveys. While
respondents living alone or with a friend are in proportion smaller
than the surveys before. Male workers living alone or with a friend
have a larger proportion than female workers. As regard their
domicile, the largest proportion is seen among those who live with
the parents,. even larger in proportion than the previous surveys,
while respondents living in their own house have also a smaller
proportion than the surveys before.
Table 1.8. Socio-Demographic Distribution of Respondents Based on Gender in the
Surveys of 2009, 2012 and 2017.
AGE/EDUCATION/ MARITAL 2009 2012 2017
NO. STATUS/LIVING STATUS/
TYPE OF DOMICILE M F M+F M F M+F M F M+F
1. Age (years)
N 7,719 4,467 12,254 12,943 9,791 22,734 20,96213,379 34,397
Mean 37 34 36 33 31 32 31 29 30
Median 35 32 34 32 29 31 29 27 28
Elementary 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
2. Education
No schooling/Elementary
2.7 3.3 2.9 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.2 1.4 1.9
not finished
Finished Elementary/same
2.5 3.6 2.9 3.2 2.7 3.0 2.1 1.2 1.8
degree education
Finished Junior High/same
8.1 9.4 8.7 8.8 5.9 7.6 6.5 3.8 5.4
degree education
Finished Senior High/same
51.6 43.6 48.4 54.6 42.3 49.4 54.5 43.7 50.3
degree education
Finished Academy/University 34.7 39.5 36.3 31.2 47.0 37.9 34.7 49.8 40.6
3. Marital Status
Single 32.2 44.5 36.7 32.1 38.2 34.7 37.1 45.2 40.2
Married 66.0 50.3 60.0 65.9 58.0 62.6 60.7 49.8 56.4
Widow/Widower 0.4 1.4 0.8 0.6 1.5 1.0 0.4 1.4 00.8
Divorced 0.9 2.8 1.6 0.9 2.0 1.4 1.0 3.1 1.8
Living together 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3
4. Status of Living
Alone 8.1 7.8 7.9 12.3 9.0 10.9 8.8 7.4 8.3
With family/Relative 74.3 69.8 72.5 79.8 86.1 82.4 85.5 88.1 86.5
With a friend 10.2 10.1 10.1 7.5 4.5 6.2 5.0 3.9 4.6
5. Type of domicile
Parents’ house 32.4 40.6 35.4 31.3 40.3 35.1 38.5 46.6 41.6
Relative’s house 5.8 6.3 6.0 6.3 6.1 6.2 4.7 4.9 4.8
Own house 35.4 29.3 33.1 36.2 33.6 35.1 31.8 27.0 29.9
Boarding/dormitory 25.1 23.0 24.3 23.3 17.3 20.8 23.3 20.4 22.2
Apartment 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2
Others 0.3 0.1 0.2 2.5 2.3 2.4 1.3 0.7 1.1

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 25

 In relation with the status of respondent’s officialdom, there is
a shift in characteristics compared to the previous surveys. The
proportion of permanent and daily paid workers is smaller than in
the surveys before, while the proportion of contracted workers
become relatively greater. The grouping of monthly wages becomes
also different compared to the previous surveys, because of
adjustment to the financial inflation (Table 9). In the previous survey
the dominant wages are in the group with wages from Rp.
800,000.00- Rp. 1,500,000.00. While in the survey of 2017 workers
with wages from Rp. 1,500,000.00 – Rp. 2,999,000.00 take a larger
proportion, that indicates an increase in the income of male as well
as female workers.
There is a question on the worker’s situation in a month, but
this question is different from the question in the previous survey .
The question in the 2017 survey does not inquire about physical and
psychological stress and problems, because of its quite high level of
subyectivity. The number of workers in the night shift is greater
among male workers, and the proportion relatively smaller than the
survey before. A part of respondents work during the day (82%). The
proportion of workers working for more than 8 hours is quite large
(65%).
Table 1.9. Distribution of Respondents’ Work Characteristics Based on Gender,
Survey on Abuse Survey on Workers, 2009, 2012 dan 2017
STATUS OF OFFICIALDOM/ 2009 2012 2017
NO MONTHLY INCOME/
MONTHLY WORK SITUATION M F M+F M F M+ M F M+F
N 8,280 5,064 13,641 14,40410,622 25,026 20,962 13,379 34,397
1. Status of officialdom
Permanent 64.6 63.0 63.9 62.0 62.9 62.4 52.9 53.3 53.0
Under contract 10.3 10.7 10.4 27.5 25.5 26.7 36.1 36.3 36.2
Daily paid 22.6 23.6 23.0 10.5 11.5 10.9 9.2 8.4 8.9
2. Monthly income (Rp.)
Less than 800 thousand 15.4 23.9 18.6 9.6 14.8 11.8 -- -- --
800 thousand -1,5 million 40.8 41.1 40.9 36.2 35.3 35.8 -- -- --
1,6 - 2,5 million 18.9 18.6 18.8 23.5 24.6 24.0 -- -- --
2,6 - 3,5 million 9.8 7.4 8.9 13.7 13.1 13.4 -- -- --
3,6 - 5 million 6.8 4.1 5.7 9.5 8.3 9.0 -- -- --
5,1 - 10 million 5.3 2.2 4.1 6.1 3.5 5.0 -- -- --
Less than 1 million -- -- -- -- -- -- 4.5 7.1 5.5
1-1,49 million -- -- -- -- -- -- 11.6 14.5 12.7
1,5-2,99 million -- -- -- -- -- -- 40.0 40.0 40.0
3-4,99 million -- -- -- -- -- -- 26.7 24.8 25.9
5-9,99 million -- -- -- -- -- -- 12.4 10.2 11.6
More than 9.99 million -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.7 2.2 3.1
3. Monthly work situation
Night shift 53.6 36.9 47.2 48.7 35.8 43.2 45.1 36.9 41.9
With physical presssure 58.0 43.9 52.6 72.8 66.3 70.1 -- -- --
With psychological pressure 93.1 93.1 93.0 92.2 92.1 92.1 -- -- --
Admit having problems 94.7 95.1 94.7 79.2 77.7 78.5 -- -- --
Day shift -- -- -- -- -- -- 83.4 81.4 82.6
More than 8 hours/day -- -- -- -- -- -- 67.3 62.7 65.5
4. Type of company/work unit
Gevernment -- -- -- 28.6 39.4 33.2 -- -- --
Non government -- -- -- 71.4 60.6 66.8 -- -- --

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 26

 5. Trend and Pattern of Drug Abuse
a. Rate of Drug Abuse (past year use/current users and ever
used)
The prevalence of drug abuse can be measured by 2
approaches, namely (ever used) and (current users). This survey
focuses on the prevalence rate of current users, since it illustrates
the present drug abuse situation. The prevalence of drug abuse in
2009 was measured in 10 provinces, but it represents the national
prevalence. The survey in 2012 was conducted in 33 provinces, and
the survey in 2017 in 34 provinces.

Table 1.10. Drug Survey on Workers Drug Abuse Prevalence of Ever Used in the past
year Based on Gender, Drug Survey on Workers, 2009, 2012 and 2017

EVER USED/
NO. 2009 2012 2017
PAST YEAR USE
1. Ever used
M+F 12.7 12.8 9.1
[13,641] [25,026] [31,253]
Males 17.4 16.3 12.0
[8,280] [14,404] [18,441]
Females 5.1 8.0 4.6
[5,064] [10,622] [12,757]
2. Past Year Use
M+F 5.2 4.7 2.9
[13,641] [25,026] [33,388]
Males 6.5 5.4 3.7
[8,280] [14,404] [20,178]
Females 3.0 3.6 1.7
[5,064] [10,622] [13,155]

Prevalence rate of ever used. The prevalence rate indicates

the range of the drug problem. Those who have ever consumed a
drug in a lifetime belongs to this cathegory. The rate of ever used in
the 2017 survey indicates a decrease if compared with the surveys
of 2009 and 2012, from 12.8% in the previous surveys to 9.1%. Most
interesting is the decrease seen among male workers in the three
surveys, and the greatest decrease is seen from 2012 to 2017. On
the other hand, drug prevalence among female workers indicates an
increase in the 2012 survey, although decreased again in 2017, even
much lower than 2009.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 27

 Prevalence rate in the past year (current users). The
prevalence of drug abuse in the past year (current users) among
workers from the surveys in 2009, 2012 nd 2017 indicate a decrease
from 4.7% (2012) to 2.9% (2017). There is a significant decrease in
the number of male drug abuser workers from 2009 to 2017. Among
the female workers a decrease is also seen, but on the other hand,
from 2009 to 2012 there is indication of an escalation, but in 2017
significantly decreased again.
1) Drug abuse Rate Based on Some Characteristics
Prevalence Based on Age Group. The following discusses
the past year prevalence. The prevalence rate tends to
decrease in the three surveys from 8.1 (males and females) to
3.0 in 2017 in the age group of under 30 years. While in the
age group of over 30 years, although a decrease occurs in 2017
(2.8) from 2012 (4.3), but the rate in 2012 is somewhat higher
than 2009. The same is illustrated among women workers of
more than 30 years, where the prevalence in 2012 indicates an
escalation. This condition is different among male workers,
that tends to go down from 2009, 2012 and 2017 in the age
group of under 30 years as well as over 30 years (Table 1.11).
Table 1.11. Prevalence of Drug Abuse Based on Socio-Demographic and Gender of
Respondents, in the Drug Surveys of 2009, 2012 and 2017 on Workers
AGE/EDUCATION/ STATUS 2009 2012 2017
NO. OF MARRIAGE/ STATUS OF
DOMICILE/TYPE OF DOMICILE M F M+F M F M+F M F M+F
N 8,280 5,064 13,641 14,404 10,622 25,026 20,178 13,155 33,388
1. Age
< 30 years 11.3 4.6 8.1 6.9 3.3 5.2 4.1 1.7 3.0
>= 30 years 5.0 1.8 4.0 4.4 4.1 4.3 3.4 1.5 2.8
2. Education
No schooling/Elementary 6.4 1.8 5.1 5.9 2.7 4.6 4.1 1.6 3.4
not finished
Elementary finished/same 3.8 1.1 5.9 4.6 1.1 3.3 4.6 1.8 3.8
degree MI
Finished Junior High/same 8.6 6.7 2.6 5.0 2.9 4.3 5.5 2.2 4.6
degree MTs
Finished Senior High/same 6.8 3.1 4.6 5.7 2.8 4.7 3.9 1.4 3.0
degree MA
Finished 7.5 2.9 7.9 5.1 4.7 4.9 3.1 1.9 2.5
Academy/University
3. Status of Marriage
Single 10.1 3.9 7.3 6.8 2.9 5.0 4.4 1.7 3.2
Married 4.5 1.5 3.6 4.6 4.0 4.4 3.2 1.6 2.7
Widow/widower 13.2 11.2 11.7 8.2 2.5 4.5 4.3 1.1 2.1
Divorced 9.6 5.6 7.1 5.2 3.1 3.8
Living together 7.3 0.0 4.3 21.2 10.5 18.3 11.1 0.0 8.3
4. Status of living
Alone 9.1 5.1 7.6 6.1 3.6 5.2 3.3 1.6 2.7
KWith family/relative 9.7 7.1 8.8 3.7 1.6 2.9
With a friend 5.5 2.3 4.4 7.9 4.8 6.9 5.8 2.7 4.8
5. Type pf domicile
Parents’ house 8.1 3.6 6.2 6.3 3.0 4.7 4.0 1.5 2.9
Relative’s house 7.6 3.8 6.2 5.8 2.2 4.3 4.8 1.1 3.3
Own house 4.1 0.9 3.1 4.0 4.4 4.1 2.9 1.9 2.5
Boarding/dormitory 7.6 4.6 6.5 6.2 3.8 5.4 4.3 2.0 3.4
Apartment 5.4 0.0 3.8 16.4 9.1 13.8 8.3 2.9 6.0
Others 4.2 0.0 3.3 4.6 5.3 4.9 4.1 0.0 3.0

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 28

 Prevalence Rate Based on Education. A shift is seen in
the prevalence of drug abuse among drug abusers with
educational background . In 2009 a high prevalence was seen
among drug abusers from Junior and Senior High School/of
similar degree up to university level. In 2017 a high prevalence
is found in the group with lower education, those who finished
Elementary and Junior High. Special attention is necessary on
this situation where the target of drugs is aimed at the group
with lower education. (Elementary and Junior High).
Prevalence rate based on marriage. The highest
prevalence is found among those who live together without
marriage. This condition is seen in the surveys of 2012 and
3027. While in the 2009 survey a high prevalence is seen
among widowers/widows.

Table 1.12. Prevalence of Drug Abuse Based on Respondents’ Occupation and

Gender, Drug Surveys on Workers, 2009, 2012 and 2017

AGE/EDUCATION/ MARITAL 2009 2012 2017

NO. STATUS / STATUS OF
DOMICILE/TYPE OF DOMICILE M F F+P M F M+F M F M+F
N 8,280 5,064 13,64114,404 10,622 25,026 20,178 13,155 33,388
1. Status of officialdom
Permanent/permanent 4.7 2.3 3.8 4.5 4.1 4.3 3.2 1.4 2.5
employee
Contracted for a certain 10.1 5.1 8.1 7.4 2.7 5.5 4.3 2.1 3.4
time
Daily paid 10.3 4.0 7.9 6.4 3.0 4.9 4.7 2.0 3.7
2. Monthly income (Rupiah)
Below 800 thousand 9.3 4.0 6.7 7.4 2.7 4.9 - - -
800 thousand -15 million 6.6 2.7 5.2 5.7 2.2 4.2 - - -
1.6 - 2.5 million 6.0 2.9 4.8 5.7 5.0 5.4 - - -
2.6 - 3.5 million 6.1 3.7 5.3 5.4 4.5 5.0 - - -
3.6 - 5 million 5.2 2.9 4.7 4.1 5.6 4.7 - - -
5.1 - 10 million 2.7 0.9 2.4 3.5 4.9 3.9 - - -
Below 1 million - - - - - - 3.6 2.0 2.8
1-1. 4.99 million - - - - - - 4.2 1.4 2.9
1.5-2.99 million - - - - - - 3.9 1.2 2.8
3-4.99 million - - - - - - 3.6 1.8 2.9
5-9.99 million - - - - - - 3.4 2.7 3.1
10-15 milion - - - - - - 3.2 3.3 3.3
Above 15 million - - - - - - 4.5 7.0 5.1
3. Work condition
Night shift 8.2 4.9 7.3 6.5 4.4 5.8 4.1 2.0 3.4
With physical pressure 8.0 4.7 7.0 6.3 4.5 5.6 - - -
With psychological 6.7 3.1 5.3 5.6 3.8 4.8 - - -
pressure
Admit having problems 6.7 3.1 5.4 6.0 4.2 5.2 - - -
Day shift - - - - - - 3.7 1.5 2.8
More than 8 hrs/day - - - - - - 3.9 1.7 3.1

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 29

 AGE/EDUCATION/ MARITAL
2009 2012 2017
STATUS/ STATUS OF
NO.
DOMICILE /TYPE OF
M F F+P M F M+F M F M+F
DOMICILE
4. Type of company/work unit
Government - - - 4.1 5.0 4.5 - - -
Non government - - - 6.1 2.5 4.7 - - -

Prevalence rate based on domicile. The highest rate is

found among drug abusers living with a friend in the 2017
syrvey. While in the 2009 and 2012 surveys the highest
prevalence is among the boarding/dormitory circles and living
in an apartment.
Prevalence rate based on occupation. The highest
prevalence is among daily paid workers. The same illustration
is found among male workers, while among the women
workers the highest prevalence is among contracted workers,
in the 2017 survey. In the surveys of 2009 and 2012 a high
prevalence is seen among contracted workers (males and
females) (Table 1.12)
Prevalence based on income. Respondents with an
income of more than 15 million a month have a high
prevalence rate, and the prevalence rate comes down orderly
in the group with a lower income. In the surveys of 2009 and
2012 there is a difference in the classification of income
related to drug prevalence. A high prevalence is found among
workers with an income of 1.6 – 2.5 million Rupiah (2012), and
below 800 thousand Rupiah.
2) Drug Prevalence Rate according to Sector of Occupation
The sector with the highest rate of drug prevalence is in
construction (4.8), while in the 2012 survey social services
places the highest position (8.1), and in 2009 construction. The
scale of prevalence rate in the three surveys by type of sector
also vary, but in general tends to decrease in 2017.
The group of male workers the drug prevalence is similar
to the general picture (male-female), showing a high
prevalence in the construction sector in the surveys of 2009
and 2017, but in the 2012 social services has the highest
prevalence of drug abuse. Among women workers the
three surveys illustrate a different prevalence. In 2009 the
highest prevalence is in the construction sector; in 2012 and
2017 in the sector of social services, but tends to go up (Table
1.13).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 30

Table 1.13. Drug Survey on Workers, Prevalence of Past Year’s Drug Abuse Based on
Gender and Occupation, Drug Survey on Workers, 2009, 2012, and 2017

NO. GENDER 2009 2012 2017

N
1. Male – Female 5.2 [13,461] 4.7 [25,026] 2.9 [33,388]
1. Agriculture/plantation 3.8 [ 1,328] 2.5 [1,026] 1.8 [953]
2. Mining & excavation 7.5 [268] 4.3 [782] 2.4 [468]
3. Processing industry 3.0 [2,010] 4.0 [5,413] 2.5 [4,885]
4. Electricity, Gas and Fresh water - 2.6 [1,669] 2.3 [1,281]
5. Construction 10.1 [924] 5.0 [802] 4.8 [2,587]
6. Trade/restaurant/accommodation 5.1 [2,336] 4.6 [5,127] 3.0 [10,895]
7. Transportation, warehousing &
communication 5.7 [ 2,445] 3.7 [1,975] 3.0 [1,681]
8. Finance/real estate/rental 5.0 [1,744] 3.6 [3,818] 2.2 [6,464]
9. Social services 5.4 [ 2,406] 8.1 [4,414] 3.6 [5,127]
2. Males 6.5 [8,280] 5.4 [14,404] 3.7 [20,178]
1. Agriculture/plantation 4.8 [ 694] 2.8 [727] 2.5 [16]
2. Mining & excavation 8.5 [ 234] 4.8 [672] 2.7 [11]
3. Processing industry 4.7 [ 1,161] 5.5 [3,291] 3.3 [105]
4. Electricity, Gas and Fresh water - 2.6 [1,114] 2.4 [22]
5. Construction 10.8 [ 768] 5.2 [668] 5.7 [112]
6. Trade/restaurant/accommodation 6.4 [1,351] 6.7 [2,905] 4.3 [265]
7. Transportation,/ warehousing &
communication 6.7 [1,773] 4.7 [1,339] 3.8 [44]
8. Finance/real estate/rental 5.8 [1,128] 4.6 [2,203] 2.9 [117]
9. Social services 6.7 [1,171] 8.4 [1,485] 3.8 [92]
3. Females 3.0 [5,064] 3.6 [10,622] 1.7 [13,155]
1. Agriculture/plantation 2.9 [618] 2.0 [299] 0.3 [1]
2. Mining & excavation 0.0 [25] 1.8 [110] 0.0 [1]
3. Processing industry 0.8 [831] 1.7 [2,122] 1.1 [19]
4. Electricity, Gas & fresh water - 2.5 [555] 2.0 [7]
5. Construction 6.0 [149] 3.7 [134] 2.1 [13]
6. Trade/restaurant/accommodation 3.4 [963] 1.9 [2,222] 1.3 [59]
7. Transportation, warehousing &
communication 2.6 [655] 1.6 [636] 1.3 [7]
8. Finance/real estate/rental 3.5 [606] 2.2 [1,615] 1.0 [24]
9. Social services 3.9 [1,217] 8.0 [2,929] 3.4 [94]

b. Rate of Drug Abuse Prevalence Based on Drug Classification

Referring to UNODC’s classification there are 7 major
classifications, cannabis, opiates, ATS, traquilizers, hallucinogens,
inhalants and over-the-counter drugs. This last classification are the
drugs that are most consumed by drug abusers in Indonesia. There
is some difference between drugs that are mostly consumed by men
and women. However, a decrease is seen in general in all
classifications of drugs except opiates. In 2017 the prevalence rate
of opiates went up among male drug abusers. The tendency of an
increase in prevalence among injecting heroin users is also a
question for alertness because of the high risk of HIV/AIDS
transmission.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 31

 Among male drug abusers the most consumed drugs in the
past year are marihuana, shabu, ecstasy, analgesics, and dextro.
Among female drug abusers the most consumed drugs are
marihuana, codeine, analgesics and ecstasy. A tendency of going
down is seen in the 3 past years for marihuana, ecstasy and shabu
among male as well as female drug abusers. Also for marihuana,
which is more frequently used among male abusers. Opiates tend to
escalate among female drug abusers workers.
There is a shift in the pattern of tranquilizers consumtion. The
year 2017 indicated the consumption of new tranquilizers known by
their trade name Lexotan, Valdimex and Zenith. This increase id
motivated by women who take much Lysergic Acid
Diethylamide/LSD. These drugs are easily obtained and sold in
phaRestaurantacies or drug stores. Today a drug against headache
and zenith are much liked by drug abusers and consumed in excess
in most provinces because of their availability and relative low price.
This drug is usually consumed as a supplement of other drugs
(multiple drug user).
Marihuana remains the most favorite drug. It is mostly
consumed in the province of North Sumatera, Jambi and Maluku.
The majority of consumers are males, particularly in North
Sumatera, Jambi and Lampung. Ecstasy is much consumed in South
Kalimantan, East and West Kalimantan, Shabu in South and East
Kalimantan, North Sumatera.

Table 1.14. Prevalence of Past Year Drug Abuse (Per 1000) Based on Type of Drug,
and Gender, Drug Survey on Workers, 2009, 2012 and 2017
MALE FEMALE
NO. TYPE OF DRUG
2009 2012 2017 2009 2012 2017
N 8,280 14,163 20,178 5,064 10,451 13,155
1. Cannabis
Marihuana (gele, cimeng,
37.8 30.2 16.0 12.0 3.2 3.34
marijuana, getok)
Hashish (resin) - 3.5 2.2 0.4 1.14
Gorilla Tobacco past year 3.0 1.52
Processed Marihuana past year 3.1 1.82
2. Opiad
Heroin, (putau, etep) 1.9 2.9 2.5 1.2 1.0 1.29
Morphine - 1.9 2.0 - 0.9 1.29
Opium - 1.4 1.5 - 0.5 0.99
Pethidine 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.8 2.3 1.29
Codeine - 3.3 2.6 - 9.2 3.65
Subutek/subuxon (buprenorphine) 1.8 1.1 1.6 1.0 0.7 1.14
Methadone 1.6 1.5 1.7 0.6 1.4 1.22
Tramadol past year 5.3 4.94
Fentanil past year 1.8 1.52
Cocaine 1.3 1.5 2.4 1.2 1.0 1.37

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 32

 MALE FEMALE
NO. TYPE OF DRUG
2009 2012 2017 2009 2012 2017
3. ATS
Dex, Adderall, Dexamphetamine
1.1 4.4 2.4 0.8 6.4 1.60
(Amphetamines)
Ecstasy (inex, XTC, cece, happy
16.3 10.2 1.7 9.9 2.4 1.06
five)
Shabu, Yaba, SS, Tastus, Ubas
12.6 10.2 5.9 4.7 2.2 2.13
(Methamphetamines)
Cathinon past year 1.8 1.14
Dextro past year 4.1 1.98
Liquid drug past year 1.8 1.22
unodc5. ATS Ecstasy
Ecstasy past year 4.1 3.04
Flakka past year 1.8 1.06
Kratom past year 1.8 1.22
4. Tranquilizers
Luminal, fenobarbital,
5.9 2.4 1.4 3.2 7.1 1.52
(barbiturates)
Benzodiazepin - 1.5 - 0.8
Nipam - 3.4 2.1 - 0.9 1.14
Pil koplo, BK, mboat, mboti, roda - 3.6 2.9 - 1.5 1.22
Rohypnol, mogadon - 1.8 1.8 - 1.3 1.06
Valium 5.0 2.4 1.8 3.8 3.4 1.29
Xanax, Camlet/calmlet
- 2.6 2.4 - 3.6 2.13
(alprazolam)
Dumolid - 1.2 2.1 - 0.8 1.37
Lexotan past year 1.8 1.14
Valdimex past year 1.8 1.22
Zenith past year 3.9 1.37
5. Hallucinogens
LSD (Lysergic Acid
1.1 1.6 1.6 0.8 2.1 1.14
diethylamide)/acid, black hart
Kecubung (datura) 2.1 3.2 2.6 1.8 1.6 1.14
Mushroom/fungus on cow
- 4.0 2.7 - 2.3 1.44
manure
Trihexyphenidyl/Trihex/THP/
yellow pill past year 2.8 1.90
6. Inhalants
Inhaled until intoxicated/fly (e.g.:
3.3 4.2 3.0 1.2 1.8 1.75
aibon glue, gasoline, spidol, etc)
7. Over the counter drugs
Dextromethorpan (cough drug) - 32.9 - 65.5
Drug for headache taken in excess
20.3 7.2 3.8 10.9 3.5 1.90
until intoxicated /fly
Headache drug mixed with soda
- - 3.3 - - 1.52
drink until become intoxicated/fly
Ketamine 1.2 3.9 1.6 0.8 4.8 1.37

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 33

 c. History of Drug Abuse and Length of Time as a Drug Abuser.
The majority of informants stated that they have consumed
several drugs such as: shabu, ecstasy, putaw, marihuana; also
various pills like: dextro; lexotan; dumolid; sanax and trihex. Almost
all informants confessed the first time they took a drug just for
having a try and persuaded by a friend. Many among them also
stated having consumed some drugs altogether (multi drugs) with
alcohol.

“I took drugs at a young age. Just after I finished Senior High

School. Association with school friends and hangouts made me
become familiar with drugs. Initially alcohol and then later also
drugs”. (In-depth interview, drug abuse worker, South
Sulawesi).

“…Alcohol, cimeng, heroin, cocaine, subotex, nipam,

methadone, dumolid, sanax, mention all of them, except
ayafuaska and gorilla, I have not tried the new ones and I do
not want to….” (In-depth interview, drug abuse worker, Bali).

“The most sophisticated drug in former times was ecstasy,

afterwards only alcohol…” (In-depth interview, drug abuser
worker, Lampung).
A part of respondents until today still take marihuana, and
some others shabu and ecstasy. Workers who take marihuana feel
that they become calm and they do not experience any addiction at
all. Informants who still consume shabu today confessed it has
become a need, especially those working in the mining sector. They
continue to consume shabu in order to be strong working at night.

“The first time I took it yes…I was at school…I took marihuana

with my friends…just for a try….today I still take it, but not as
frequently as in the old days…yes…I get it from a friend, Sir”

“Nowadays I still take shabu. Once in two weeks I always

consume shabu. My body is already sick, shabu is a need for
me” (In-depth interview, drug abuser worker, South Sulawesi)

“I started to use drugs in the middle of 2013. When I started to

work in the mines, and work at night shift I couldn’tstand, there
was much work to do, gradually….addiction (In-depth
interview, drug abuser worker, East Kalimantan).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 34

 Informants who fomerly took putaw today it is almost
impossible to get putaw so they change to taking shabu, but still by
injection. All informants state that they want to stop taking drugs
but very hard to do. They have made efforts by their own will and
through rehabilitation, but still they come back to drugs. They have
difficulties because they live in the same environment and get easily
influenced.
“The problem is I wanted to, I have the money I can buy. But
getting strong addiction, I don’t want. Only some friends say “
I want this, let us do this, so we buy it” (In-depth interview, drug
abuser worker, Central Java).
“Yes,…I don’tknow, because of belief, suggestion maybe at the
time of consumption he feels the drug shall ruin the nerve
system and everything, and he feels when using the drug he is
more than the usual that makes him addicted. Just like when
we tried the drug, when we used it we feel stronger, a feeling
of euphoria, feeling happy, no saad feeling,mabe that makes
someone addicted” (In-depth interview, drug abuser,
Lampung).
There is something interesting from the informants. They say
they are not addicted to the drug. According to them a person is
addicted if he cannot do their daily activities although they have
taken the drug for many years. In reality until today there is no
obstruction to do the daily routines.
“In my opinion that is only a myth, I don’t know do not
understand either the problem. I’m not a regular user” (In-
depth interview Drug abuser worker, South Kalimantan)
“... but about marihuana if we stop taking there is not much
effect maybe. If shabu or marihuana if we don’t take it’s
nothing” (In-depth interciew, drug abuser worker, Riau
Islands).
They have several methods to avoid addiction.
InfoRestaurantants from South Kalimantan say they do not take
shabu on a daily basis and they never buy shabu. One important
thing is they have to be able to control not to take routinely. And he
can prove he has not taken shabu since the past three years.
According to the informant his friend always give shabu without any
pay whenever he asks for it. But if someone longs to buy it means
that the person is addicted. Another informant from Papua who in
the past took the pill Trihex routinely said he did not feel any
addiction because he stopped taking when he fell ill, and when he
recovered there was no wish to consume Trihex very soon after the
illness.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 35

 “... Previously when I took shabu the most worry I had with my
friends is addiction, we were very careful, indeed, they said “if
you want the drug say, but never have the intention to buy.
That is an indication of addiction “. (In-depth interview, drug
abuser worker, South Kalimantan)
“I stopped at the time I fell ill, when I vomited blood I didn’ttake
anymore, I immediately stopped. There are other who are
addicted to that drug, even to trihex, but could immediately
stop” (In-depth interviews, drug abuser worker, Papua)
Drug abusers who have taken the drug for a long time gave
quite variable answers. One informant used the drug when he was
in grade 1 Junior High, another during his school years in Senior
High., and another after getting a job. The time range of drug intake
of all informants is between 3 to 20 years.
“Ecstasy and shabu, not to take seriously. I you can, I also can.
About Gele, I took it for a long time, twenty years” (In-depth
interview, West Papua).
“I took drugs since I was young. Yeah, by the end of Senior
High” (In-depth interview, drug abuser worker, South
Sulawesi)
“Me, when I had not yet a family, I haad tried almost
everything, marihuana, inex, shaabu, putaw. As I have no
responsibility, I was still free, didn’t think of anything. It was
too muchbut, yes” (In-depth interview, drug abuser worker,
Riau Islands).
In general, the first intake of drugs was at the time of hangouts
with friends. Many of the informants stated that before taking drugs
they tried alcohol first, and after that drugs. Initially having a try of
alcohol, when it was pleasant, eventually they became drug
addicted.
“Association with school friends and hangouts make me
familiar with drugs. Initially from taking alcohol and later
started taking drugs “ (In-depth intervies, drug abuser worker,
South Sulawesi).

d. Drug Abuse Pattern.

Type of drug and Reason for taking drugs.
A popular drug and increasing in the abuse in many regions are
shabu and marihuana. Other popular drugs are inex, ecstasy, koplo
pill, amphetamines and dextro.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 36

 “What I know the most in the city Kendari are shabu, inex,
also marihuana and cimeng” (drug abuser worker, S.E.
Sulawesi)
Marihuana and shabu are becoming more popular and much
abused. This drug is easily accessible, and of a reasonable price for
the workers’ finance. Shabu is used in more exclusive circles like “the
manager” or the “bos” of workers. For this group shabu is relatively
of a cheap price.
“..Between the bos and subordinates there is a separate line,
and not possible to used the drug together….yes…maybe…but
the drug may be more expensive…like shabu….that is
expensive. We only take marihuana or over-the-counter
drugs…” (drug abuser worker, DKI Jakarta)
The reason for taking drugs is generally influenced by friends
and environment, initially offered by a best friend. Some of the
informts stated they were “framed” to try a drug, then became
addicted.
”…First because of association with friends….Secondly, it could
be just to try then became addicted. Thirdly, eh…what you call
framed, like that. Because if you don’t know what it is, and
because a girl drinks that, right” ( drug abuser worker, Jambi).
Several drug abusers take drugs for relaxation, during days off
work. Many of the abusers admit they are also dealers as their
means of livelihood and to fulfill their needs for drugs.
“..Yes…..many of them are dealers, like that, so they also buy,
also take…..me, now I use marihuana, not always necessary,
only during days off, Saturdays and Sundays, 5 days working…”
(drug abuser worker, Central Java)
“..For economic reasons, I see there is a higher income. They
are also doing drug sales….” (non-drug abuser, Central Java)
Another reason forcing them to use drugs is the high work
pressure, and to show their work performance to the company.
“.Usually to achieve the work target, for example, it has to be
completed tomorrow, and we have to stay up late…” (drug
abuser worker, South Kalimantan).
“..To increase stamina when there is much work to do. Toget
pleasure after a week’s work. Use drugs outside work
hours ...(drug user worker, North Sumatera).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 37

 Take drugs for doping or heighten the spirit of the drug user.
They also use drug for sex activities.
“shabu and amphetamine is like doping or for heightening the
spirit” (drug user worker, Yogyakarta).
“.. Oh yes he can take drugs for sex..” (non drug user worker,
Maluku).
Reasons for taking drugs among workers are influenced by
many factors, for example, just for trying/experimenting, influenced
by friends or environment, work pressure, looking for pleasure,
doping, to release exhaustion after work. An informant from
Belitung told how bad the environment’s pressure, if the person has
a strong will/belief of his own ability everything will be ok.
“..Simple, exhausted. Those who are the most dominant follow
the lead, they are influenced by the environment. There is
actually frustration. Those who are not strong enough, who do
not work, or have to work overtime..” (In-depth interview, non
drug user, Bangka Belitung).
“..Initially, from alcohol, as alcohol is the gate for drugs. If one
group of people gather together and there is alcohol, one can
be sure that it may be possible that there are also drugs…”
(Indepth interview, drug abuser worker, West Java).

“..There may be drugs in the work environment because of

stress or pressure in that environment, or may be there is a
problem in the family so the person needs something in his
daily life “oh yes, I have to take something so some problems
will be somewhat lighter” but that is not the case,,,” (In-depth
interview non drug abuser worker, Gorontalo )

According to the worker drug abuser informant there are

different backgrounds for a person to take drugs. Some consume
drugs because they want to have some pleasure, some because of
stress of work, some others have problems with their parents or
family, others to be bold in encountering other people, etc. Some
informants admit after having consumed drugs they feel
comfortable.

“Eehh..do not look from their work, but from their social
life….they may take drugs for some reasons, we don’t
know..according to me it is not easy to jerdge
somebody…maybe they only want to have some fun… to
be happy” (In-depth interview, drug abuser worker, West
Java).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 38

 “Like us, we first want to experiment, when we use the drug we
feel something more, like euphoria, pleasure, happy, no
sadness, maybe that makes someone addictive to drugs” (In-
depth interview, Non drug abuser, Lampung)

Workers from the low level up to the level of managers have

their own burden of work. So every one who use drugs has his own
reasons that may differ from others. Some take drugs because they
have personal problems, either in the work place or in the family,
economic problems, with a friend, with their work, or something
else.

“..I’m sure every person has his own reasons. There must be
some reasons. Me myself, for me it is the personal problems,
not economic problems. If I have problems with my family, I
turn to drugs…” (In-depth interview, drug abuser worker,Riau
Islands).

A drug abuser worker informant said that there are also some
drug abusers who use marihuana to be able to focus in doing their
work, and it makes him happy.

“..Maybe some say they take drugs so they can focus. But I
don’t really know that. But maybe for marihuana, the reason
is just to be happy “ (In-depth interview, drug abuser, Riau
Islands)

“I think they use drugs for pleasure…because in the

entertainment spots just like at my place, people use drugs
just for fun. In entertainment centers people usually take
drugs, That’s why there are many raids in Manado (Non
drug abuser worker, North Sulawesi)

e. Group of Drug Abusers

Drug abusers can be classified into groups based on the
continuum of drug use and its risk factor. Based on continuum drug
abuse is grouped according to the frequency of use in the past year:
experimental drug use, regular drug use and drug addict. In the
experimental drug use are those who take drugs less than 5 times,
in the group of regular use are people who have ever used drugs
between 6-49 times, non injecting drug addict are people who take
more than 49 times a year, while the group of injecting drug use are
current users/ever used in the past year.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 39

 The highest prevalence rate is found in the group of
experimental use. It is understood as they are in the phase of
experimenting with drugs, and if they cannot leave from the drug
problem, they will continue and belong to the next group. Serious
attention should be paid to the minimum difference in prevalence
between the non-injecting and injecting drug abusers, as the group
of injecting drug abusers have a high risk for HIV/AIDS transmission
or other diseases as an effect of needle sharing. Details in the
prevalence rate is shown in the Table below.

Table 1.15. Prevalence of Drug Abusers in the Past Year (%) Based on Gender and
Rate of Addiction, Drug Survey on Workers, 2012 and 2017

NON
EXPERI INJEC ALL DRUG
NO. YEAR REGULAR INJEC
MENTAL TING ABUSERS
TING
1. 2012
M+F [25026] 3.7 0.6 0.20 0.2 4.7
Males [14404] 4.2 0.7 0.3 0.3
Females [10622] 3.0 0.5 0.07 0.06
2. 2017
M+F [33388] 2.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 2.9
Males [20178] 2.9 0.5 0.3 0.1
Females [13155] 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Table 15 illustrates that in general drug abusers; percentage

decreased compared to the 2012 survey among males and females.
What is most interesting is that among injecting drug users there was
no change in the prevalence in the years 2012 and 2017, and
precisely among the women workers an increase is seen from 0.07
to 0.1.
Drug abuse among worker is related to the development of
construction in all sectors. Drugs circulate in all sectors of work.
Workers are vulnerable to become a drug abuser as they are
economically able to buy drugs. Because of the work pressure. Drugs
are consumed to keep the body’s stamina in shape so the workers
are able to do their jobs for a long time, or when workers have much
work to do, or they want to get rid of surfeit after work. The type of
drugs frequently used among workers are shabu, marihuana and
ecstasy.
“..I think usually the jobless group use drugs, but the cheap
medicines such as glue. Then the workers, most workers use
shabu and ecstasy, because they have the money, yes…(In-
depth interview, non drug abuser, Riau).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 40

 “...If ecstasy, average from night life. The cathegory, yes…from
the adolescent to the adults. Shabu…usually used by workers in
the mines. Street singers use Zenith (Carnopen)..” (In-depth
interview, drug abuser worker, South Kalimantan).

Among the adolescents groupings are based on the range of

income and sector of work. The more established a person, the
more expensive the drug consumed, like ecstasy and shabu. If the
income is not as large, then they consume marihuana and shabu,
particularly sold as an economic package. Shabu is much used among
workers in the mining sector or nature exploration. Ecstasy is much
consumed in the tourism sector.

“..In the circles of workers it depends on their financial

condition. The more established, maybe the drug becomes
more expensive. Generally inex, marihuana rather seldom. The
problem is that marihuana is easily seen or known. If inex,
people go to a discotheque, and enjoy…” (In-depth interview,
drug abuser worker, Riau Islands).

“..Since shabu can make a person become active, so it is much

wanted. Besides, also cheap, sold as an economic package. We
can get shabu for 100 thousand Rupiah…( In-depth interview,
Non drug user, Riau)

f. Experience in Police/Management Encounter

Many stories are told in relation with experiences as a drug
abuser. The majority of interviewed informants have been in
contact with the police and company management, but some others
who take drugs have never been encountered with the police or
management, as long as the worker does not get addicted, and be
able to control himself when to take a drug.

“Alhamdulillah, I have never until now. Hope not, maybe we

have to face a friend with high risk, but not with the police…”
(In-depth interview, drug abuser worker, Lampung)

“Until today never at all having an encounter with the police

because of drug abuse, never.Likewise with the management
in the work place” (In-depth interview, drug abuser worker,
West Papua).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 41

 An informant in East Kalimantan stopped his activities as a
drug dealer after he came to know he was wanted by the police.
Afraid to be caught by the police he decided not to continue as a
dealer, because if he did not stop his plan to marry and build a family
would fail totally. Besides, he planned to work at a mining company
close to his house, and in order to be accepted at the company he
would have to get a recommendation from BNN.
“Only wanted but not caught by the police. I thought if I
continue when could I marry, it was not easy to find work so
the option is I have to stop as a dealer so I can work, the mine
behind my house should get a recommendation from BNN ( In-
depth interview, drug abuser worker, East Kalimantan).
An informant from Batam and Jakarta said they were once
caught by the Police during a raid at a entertainment spot. Both said
they were taken to the Police office to be processed. Eventually both
infoRestaurantants were released because they had connections in
the Police and Army. The two cases were not known by the
management.
“Got into a raid once at a discotheque. But since I had many
friends in the Police I was not examined. But if I was examined,
I could stumble in matters of the law. I had to deal with the
Police because of a fight. Drugs…no” (In-depth interview, drug
abuser worker, Riau Islands).
“Was once caught by the Police. At the Police Office I contacted
by uncle. I was fortunate my uncle is from the Army who helped
me” (In-depth interview, drug abuser worker, DKI Jakarta).
Another experience from Central Java in the encounter with
the Police. The informant worked at a karaoke in Semarang. When
he was sleeping in his boarding house with his friend he was raided
by BNNP. What made him shocked the raid was covered by
television and journalists of the local media. The informants was
very embarrassed because of that he was seenin television and in
the newspapers. Fortunately the lady of the boarding house who is
the manager at his work place helped him and paid bail for him.
After that incidence she warned the informant not to take drugs
again.
“Yes, there was a raid at the boarding house. Including my
boarding house and I was arrested I was very embarrassed. It
was in th newspapers and TV, only a local TV.” (In-depth
interview, drug abuser worker, Central Java).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 42

 “My boarding lady happened to be the manager of my work
plae, she helped us and said never do this anymore, let this be
a lesson. Some friends can leave us but some pity us” (In-depth
interview, drug abuser worker, Central Java)
An informant from Bali was taken to prison for 2 years 9
months because he was framed by his own friend. The informant
was asked by the friend to take drugs from the dealer, the
informant’s customer. At first the informant objected because he
was a little lazy and happen to be a little intoxicated by alcohol. As
his friend repeatedly asked him eventually he was willing to take the
drug. In the morning his friend came to collect the drug. After
handing over the drug the informant washed his face, and when he
came out of the bathroom the informant was shocked because there
were 2 policemen outside. The police said that the drug his friend
had in his hand was just bought from the informant. The
infoRestaurantant argued and hit his friend, but the police hit the
informant back and accused him a drug dealer. At the police station
the informant tried to bribe and asked for some dispensation but the
police refused.

g. Efforts of Drug Abusers To Stop Addiction

The majority of drug abusers remain to use drugs until today.
Informants who in the past used putaw have nowadays a lot of
difficulties to get putaw so they shift to consuming shabu, but still by
injecting. All informants are eager to stop using drugs, but too
difficult for them. Some want to stop on their own will through
rehabilitation, but continue to consume drugs. It is hard to stop
because they continue to live in the same environment so they are
easily influenced to take drugs.
“The problem is at that time I wanted to take drugs, and I have
the money. But having an addiction, no. Sometimes my friends
say “I want this, so let’s do it. So we buy.” (In-depth interview,
drug abuser worker, Central Java).
“Yeah, I don’t know, because of believe, what I mean is
suggestion when he uses it he feels the drug will ruin the nerve
system and others, and he feels something more than usual
when he uses it, that makes him addicted to it. Like if we just
try at first, and we feel something more, there is euphoria,
feeling happy, not feeling sad, maybe that causes addiction”
(In-deth interview, drug abuser, Lampung).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 43

 Something interesting is that quite many inrmants say they are
not addicted to drugs. In their opinion someone is said being
addicted if he cannot do daily activities although he has consumed a
drug for many years. The fact is that until now nothing keep them
from doing their routines every day.
“For me, that is a myth only I don’tknow, I don’t understand
the problem because I’m not a drug user, I mean, a routine
drug user” (In-depth interview, drug abuser worker, South
Kalimantan).
“...But for others, I don’t think too much, For Cannabis/Ganja
(marihuana) if we stop there is not too much influence. For
shabu or Cannabis/Ganja, if we stop it doesn’t affect
anything”. (In-depth interview, drug abuser worker, Riau
Islands).
Several things the informants practise to avoid drug addiction.
The informant from South Kalimantan stated he does not consume
shabu every day, and never buy the drug. The most important thing
is to keep from consuming routinely. That was proven when he
stopped taking shabu for the last 3 years. Friends always give shabu
for free anytime the infoRestaurantant asked for. But if there is a
longing to buy shabu for himself that means he has already become
addicted. Another informant from Papua who routinely consumed
the Trihex pill before told he felt not addicted when he stopped using
the pill at the time he was ill and after he recovered there was no
wish to immediately consume the Trihex pill.
“...Before, yes, when I still used shabu friends were most
worried for addiction.True, friend once told “if you want, tell
us, but don’t get the idea to buy, because that is already an
indication, indicators of addiction” (In-depth interview, drug
abuser worker, South Kalimantan).
“I stopped when I was ill, threw up blood, I dodn’t use anymore,
so I immediately stopped just like that, because it was only a
weak pill trihex, so I could stop” (In-depth interview, drug
abuser worker, Papua).
According to the informant from East Kalimantan who was
foRestauranterly a drug abuser, a drug with a strong effect of
addiction is putaw or heroin. Marihuana does not make a person
become highly addicted because no problems will appear if a person
does not consume marihuana for a couple of days or weeks. Not with
putaw, one cannot do without putaw,even for 1 day. That is why it
is much more harder to be free from the drug.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 44

 There are plenty of ways to get free from addiction like for
example, medical rehabilitation, religion, traditional or medical
healing, or willingly totally stop from drugs. All these efforts cannot
guarantee recovery from drug addiction. The most important thing
is when you stop taking drugs, never meet or associate with drug
abuser friends. If you still requently meet with them there is a great
chance that someone will come back to drugs because of strong
persuasion or offer to ddrugs by friends.
“I have once tried, but it is not so easy with putaw. Someone’s
help is necessary. I was what you call isolated, at a pondok
pesantren (school of Korannic studies). For three yeaars I
totally stopped from taking drugs, because there weremany
activities outside. We were also upgrading the office’s status,
so there was much work to do. But when the condition became
relax, many new friends came it started again. Yes, that is
environment, friends. Friends have great influence. So if we are
friends with drug users, surely 60% we join “ (In-depth
interview, drug user worker, East Kalimantan).
6. Understanding and Attitude Towards Drugs
a. Understanding of Drugs Among Workers
The impact of drug abuse can affect in physical, psychological,
social and economic consequences. Physical addiction can bring
intense pain (sakaw) if the drug is discontinued. The psychological
effect from drugs is a strong craving for drugs, or called suggestion.
Its physical and psychological symptoms is also related to social
symptoms such as an urge to lie to the parents, steal, anger,
manipulative, etc. The money spent for drugs is not of a small
amount; parents and family have immensely suffered from financial
loss. This survey presents the respondents’ understanding of the
drug’s bad impact.
The majority of respondents (90%) rightfully understand that
injecting drug use bring a higher risk for HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis
transmission. The understanding is spread all over the sectors of
work, with a variation of only 83% - 92%. The minimum
understanding is among the workers in the sector of agriculture and
mining, and the highest in the sector of social services.
Most respondents (88%) stated that drugs bring addiction.
There is not much difference in the answers of respondents, i.e.
between 75-89%. The highest percentage is found in
Transportation/warehousing and communication. The lowest in the
sectors of mining and excavation (75%).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 45

Table 1.16. Understanding of Drugs Based on Sector, Drug Survey on Workers, 2017
PRO FI
ELE CON TRA TRA SER
NO. AGR MIN CES NAN TOTAL
CTR STR DE NSP VICE
SING CE
N 954 471 4,896 1,288 2,591 10,904 1,683 6,475 5,135 34,397
1. Injecting drug abuse has a greater risk for HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis Transmission
True 83.3 84.5 87.5 88.3 88.0 89.1 90.5 91.1 91.8 89.4
Wrong 13.5 14.6 10.7 9.1 10.3 9.4 8.5 7.5 6.8 9.0
2. Drug consumption shall not bring addiction
True 14.2 23.1 10.8 7.9 12.4 9.9 9.6 9.3 10.0 10.3
Wrong 82.4 75.2 87.2 89.0 85.6 88.4 89.0 89.1 88.2 87.8
3. The drug abuser can control the dose of drug intake to avoid addiction
True 31.3 35.9 26.9 24.0 28.7 27.5 25.8 23.8 28.5 27.0
Wrong 63.3 62.2 70.5 72.2 68.7 70.2 72.4 74.3 69.2 70.7
4. Drug abuse can ruin the nerves/brain cells
True 89.6 86.8 89.7 88.6 89.9 91.8 91.3 91.9 92.7 91.2
Wrong 7.7 11.5 8.5 8.4 8.4 6.8 7.4 6.9 5.9 7.2

All respondents have a good understanding that drug abusers

can control the dose of drug consumption to avoid addiction. This
was stated by more than 70% of respondents. More than 91%
respondents also said that drugs cause damage in the brain/nerves.
From the above four questions the lowest understanding is related
to the question no. 3 that drug abusers can control the dose of drugs
to avoid addiction. This illustrates that respondents have to upgrade
their understanding on the question that drug abusers cannot
control drug consumption to avoid addiction.

b. Delivery of Drug Information

More than 96% of respondents stated that television is a very
effective channel in delivering various information on the dangers of
drugs. The second medium also quite effective are newspapers,
magazines; it was said by 77% respondents. Radio, posters and
other media relatively less effective. While friends, relatives,
teacher/lecturer, religious/community leaders still lower in rate as a
source of information. However, not a few of respondents stated
they have never received information on drugs and their dangers.
The same information was given by the qualitative and
quantitative studies, that respondents viewcan see it television as
an effective medium in delivering the dangers of drugs, as people
can see it immediately, and television reaches the most remote
places. Through television it is presented in many forms of
information, advertisements, talk show, interview and even as a
story. But television can also give a bad impact if it only consists of
news on arrests without any information on the method of
prevention and the drug’s impact on health.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 46

 “..About drugs only through discussion. Also from television
news. Newspapers. The most frequent, from television or in
the internet”. In-depth interview, drug auser worker, Riau
Islands).
“..Frequently see information on television, baliho, banner at
the office, also seminars organized at PUSRI. There was a
lecture in the seminar given by an artist Gito Rollies. There was
also an invitation for a parents’ meeting at school, OSIS
activities (Students organization), also a drug test when
entering a university…..” (In-depth interview, drug abuser
worker, South Sumatera).
“..Drug information from the electronic media, the most
frequent from television. I like to access from Youtube,
application and website. Seldom from the radio about
psychotropic substances. Besides that also from stickers,
banners, street advertisements, and the most routine because
I frequently go out of town…” (In-depth Non drug user, Aceh).
The majority of workers (93%) know about the National
Narcotics Board quite well, but about BNNP (Province) and BNNK
(city) far less (55%), and the least among workers in the sector of
Mining, and the most among workers in the Social Services sector.

Table 1.17. Source of information on the types of drugs and their risks, the presence
of BNN according to sector of work, Drug Survey on Workers, 2017
PRO FI SER
SOURCE OF MI ELE CON TRA TRA TO
NO. AGR CES NAN VI
INFORMATION NING CTR STR DE NSP TAL
SING CE CES
N 954 471 4,896 1,288 2,591 10,904 1,683 6,475 5,135 34,397
1. Source of information on the type and risks of drugs
Television 95.9 95.5 95.4 95.8 94.2 96.8 97.7 97.6 96.9 96.5
Radio 52.4 41.2 57.9 56.2 56.8 57.3 61.2 62.1 60.9 58.6
Newspaper/magaz
69.2 52.7 72.0 77.3 74.0 76.7 79.1 83.1 79.4 77.0
ines
Posters/bilboards/
52.7 44.4 56.1 60.6 58.5 59.0 63.7 67.8 67.1 61.3
banners/brochures
Sticker/pamphlet/
44.5 34.8 46.2 49.1 46.1 48.6 55.4 56.1 58.0 50.9
handouts
Friends in the
44.8 36.5 45.9 46.1 44.9 49.6 52.5 56.4 56.9 50.8
work place
Friends outside
44.7 35.9 45.7 48.1 44.8 49.9 53.4 56.5 54.9 50.7
the work place
Relative/family
44.8 31.2 42.9 44.2 44.1 48.0 50.6 54.6 51.1 48.4
member/parents
Teacher/instructor
/lecturer/school 45.5 31.0 43.8 46.0 46.6 52.2 55.6 57.7 56.8 51.8
activities/campus
Religious leader/
priest/clergy 42.5 32.3 43.5 44.5 43.0 46.5 51.0 52.1 49.4 47.1
man/kyai

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 47

 SOURCE OF TO
NO. PT PM IS LG KS PG AK KU JS
INFORMATION TAL
BNN/BNNP/BNNK/
42.5 36.9 42.1 45.3 43.7 49.2 52.8 54.9 54.7 49.3
Police
NGO 22.3 18.0 23.0 20.8 22.2 24.0 27.9 27.5 27.1 24.8
Information in the
29.6 28.2 31.6 32.1 25.5 31.2 31.2 34.3 39.0 32.5
Work Place
Internet/Social
49.8 34.0 53.1 56.8 56.6 61.7 64.9 67.7 65.9 61.1
Media
Others 0.7 1.7 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.1
Never Received
Information on the
4.5 4.2 5.0 3.9 3.6 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.6 4.6
Types and Risks of
Drugs
2. Ever heard of the following institutions
National Narcotics
87.4 83.0 90.1 93.0 91.7 93.3 94.5 95.7 94.3 93.1
Board (BNN)
Province National
Narcotics Board 56.2 47.8 50.0 55.8 53.9 53.6 59.3 57.3 62.3 55.4
(BNNP)
Regency/City
National Narcotics 44.8 35.9 40.2 44.4 42.1 40.1 45.1 43.7 49.5 42.8
Board (BNNK)

c. Workers’ Views and Attitude Towards Drug Abuse, and Their

Attitude Towards Drug Abusers
The drug problem has spread to all social layers of the
community, and to all levels of education both in the government,
the private sector as well as in the circles of workers.
Comprehensive and continuous efforts of prevention is crucial to
make workers possess a way of thinking and attitude that is able to
reject drug abuse and illicit trafficking in drugs. The survey’s results
show that the attitude of all respondents on the dangers of drug is
quite satisfactory, and have sorted out according to their respective
classifications of smoking, alcohol and drugs.
In the survey respondents’ attitude was asked whether they
agree on the behaviour of smoking, drinking (alcohol) and drug
consumption (marihuana, heroin and ecstasy) and frequency of
consumption (Table 1.18). They were also asked on the degree of
risks for smoking, alcohol and drugs (Table 1.19). Results of the
survey indicate that most respondents, in a range from 77 – 86% do
not agree to smoking, alcohol and consumption of marihuana,
ecstasy and heroin, on an experimental or routine basis. (Table 1.18).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 48

Table 1.18. Attitude of Disagreement Towards Behaviour Related to Drug Abuse
Based on Sector, Drug Survey on Workers, 2017
PRO FI SER
MI ELE CON TRA TRA TO
NO. AGR CES NAN VI
NING CTR STR DE NSP TAL
SING CE CES
N 954 471 4,896 1,288 2,591 10,904 1,683 6,475 5,135 34,397
1. Disagree:
Smoking 12-20
76.1 70.0 75.2 76.0 64.4 75.3 76.0 78.9 84.4 77.0
cigarettes/day
Drinking 4 or 5
85.5 79.1 83.5 81.4 78.7 81.6 83.4 85.8 88.3 84.0
times/week
1 or 2 times
exsperimenting with 85.3 81.2 83.7 85.6 83.0 83.0 85.4 87.3 89.2 85.3
marihuana
Sometines smoke
85.1 81.2 84.3 85.1 83.0 83.3 85.6 87.9 89.3 85.6
marihuana
Routine marihuana
86.1 82.5 85.7 86.1 84.0 85.1 87.1 88.9 90.2 86.9
smoking
1 or 2 times
experimenting with 85.9 81.8 84.6 86.1 83.8 84.5 86.7 88.5 89.9 86.3
heroin
Sometimetimes
85.8 82.3 85.0 85.8 83.7 84.8 86.6 88.6 89.8 86.4
heroin use
Routine heroin use 86.2 83.3 85.3 86.4 83.8 85.2 87.1 89.1 90.1 86.8
1 or 2 times experi-
85.3 81.8 84.5 85.7 83.5 84.0 86.5 88.2 89.8 86.1
menting with ecstasy
Sometimes use
85.9 81.8 84.8 85.8 83.9 84.2 86.6 88.6 89.7 86.3
ecstasy
Routine ecstasy use 86.0 83.1 85.4 86.2 83.9 85.1 87.1 88.9 90.0 86.8

Table 1.19.Views towards Health Risks of Drug Abuse Behaviour Based on Sector,
Drug Survey on Workers, 2012
PRO FI SER
MI ELEC CON TRA TRA TO
NO. AGR CES NAN VI
NING TR STR DE NSP TAL
SING CE CES
N 954 471 4,896 1,288 2,591 10,904 1,683 6,475 5,135 34,397
1. Health Risks of:
Smoking 12-20
79.1 70.1 81.8 82.2 79.7 81.7 82.1 83.4 86.2 82.3
cigarettes/day
4 or 5 times
77.0 71.5 81.1 80.1 78.9 79.9 81.8 83.1 84.6 81.2
drinking/week
1 – 2 times experi-
menting with mari- 76.1 70.9 79.9 79.1 78.3 78.4 79.9 81.5 83.2 79.8
huana smoking
Sometimes mari-
74.9 72.4 79.8 80.2 78.8 78.7 80.6 81.9 83.4 80.1
huana smoking
Routine marihuana
78.0 73.0 82.0 81.6 81.4 81.3 83.6 84.5 85.5 82.5
smoking
1 – 2 times experi-
75.7 71.3 79.7 79.4 78.9 78.5 80.3 82.2 83.2 80.1
menting with heroin
Sometimes consume
75.6 72.6 80.3 80.4 80.2 79.3 80.8 82.7 83.9 80.8
heroin
Routine use of
78.3 73.5 81.8 81.5 81.7 81.5 83.4 84.6 85.5 82.6
heroin
Sometimes use
75.9 71.8 79.4 78.8 78.6 78.3 80.0 81.9 83.3 79.8
ecstasy
Routine use of
75.6 71.3 80.0 80.1 79.7 79.0 80.7 82.6 83.8 80.5
ecstasy

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 49

 Informant’s suggestion on Drug Communication. Information and
Education (KIE)
Various efforts are implemented to increase the community’s
resilience to prevent the drug in their environment. One of the
activities is to extend drug information and its dangers through
Communication, Information and Education (KIE) either directly, or
by brochures, advertisements, billboards, or using printing and
electronic media. Communication, Information and Education is one
of the strategic means (PPK UI – 2007). To get effective results from
KIE, selection of materials e.g. messages, pictures, and the receiving
target should be fully prepared.
Based on the qualitative study of this survey
infoRestaurantants stated that many KIE media are in circulation in
the community, but not sufficiently communicative. Most of the
languages and messages in the KIE media are monotonous and more
or less in the form of preaching. The language should be corrected,
by using simple language and easily understood, arousing curiosity
and inviting, not to blame the listeners. The message should be
focussed on advantages and disadvantages of drug use so people will
determine themselves of their choice.
“..Nowadays is a modern time, everybody own gadgets. The
best method to extend drug information is through social
media, perhaps particularly in Instagram, twitter, facebook,
mainly all social media to share with the government on the
dangers of drugs and types of drugs, TV, radio, newspapers, it
is still questionable. Young people very seldom touch those
better through social media, and directly like socialization and
information.” (In-depth interview, non drug abuse worker,
Riau).
Another effective way to extend information is through a
direct persuasive approach to workers, so the info Restaurantation
is directly received, and notice the workers’ reaction. Delivery of
information is also possible through Multi Level Marketing (MLM),
from person to person, or from friend to friend for a quick spread of
information.
“..Actually persuasive, a direct approach. As we cannot do that,
we take the MLM system, just like selling. From friend to friend,
please, help to forward this, it should be like this…” (In-dept
interview, non drug abuse worker, Bangka Belitung).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 50

 “..Through information they can share with each other,
discussing with BNN while directly touching the problem, and
there is quite an effective forum for questions and answers…”
(In-depth interview, non drug abuse worker, Lampung).
“In Indonesia everybody uses social media, young and old…
(Indepth interview, non drug abuse worker, North
Maluku).
Information in the internet is not explicitly given. So the
company establishes Granat, a forum that gives drug information
and socialization, seminars, direct approach to workers and
motivation so workers will not fall into the grip of drugs.
“Not yet. because we only read and forget the information
easily because we have so many activities, so better by direct
information. because when given face to face then it will be
more effective…” (In-depthinterview, non drug abuse worker,
Riau).
“Not sufficient, needs more aspects of clarification, so PT
TImah establishes an organization, internal organization called
Granat that gives motivation to the employees/workers. PT
Timah gives quite extensive information on the effects of drug
abuse. So with these approaches and socialization to workers,
or during meetings there is quite an effective motivation for
workers…” (In-depth interview, non drug abuser worker,
Bangka Belitung).

7. Smoking and Drinking Behaviour. and Sex Behaviour Among

Workers
a. Smoking Behaviour
In the survey on workers in 2009 and 2012, workers were
asked on their smoking behaviour in the past month. The outcome
indicates that the prevalence of smoking among male workers, is far
much greater than among women workers. There is tendency for a
total increase. but decreases among women. In the 2017 survey the
question was raised on the prevalence of smoking in the past week.
The purpose is to see the total cigarettes consumed in the past week.
The smoking rate is higher, and the proportion greater of those who
smoke more than 35 cigarettes among workers in the sectors of
agriculture and mining (17%). Nowadays there is a trend smokers
shift to electric cigarettes, and the result shows that its proportion is
quite great ranging from 17 – 25%, with the largest proportion in the
sectos of transportation/communication, and construction.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 51

 The outcome of the 2017 indicates that the prevalence of
smokers above 30 years is relatively higher among male workers.
While among the women, much lower in the age above 30 years.
In the 2017 survey the prevalence of smoking in the past week
based on education is totally much higher among the workers with
lower education (< Elementary). Likewise a higher prevalence among
the male workers with a lower education.
Table 1.20. Prevalence of Smoking in the Past Month Among Workers (2009 & 2012),
and Prevalence of Smoking in the Past Week (2017) Based on Gender
IN THE PAST MONTH IN THE PAST WEEK
NO. GENDER
2009 2012 2017
1. M+F 40.6 [ 13,461] 46.7 [25,026] 32.5 [11,190]
2. Males 60.4[ 8,280] 75.4 [14,404] 51.5 [10,800]
3. Females 8.2[5,064] 7.8 [10,622] 2.8 [371]

Table 1.21. Prevalence of Smoking in the Past Month Among Workers (2009 & 2012),
and Prevalence of Smoking in the Past Week Based on Age (2017)
PAST MONTH PAST WEEK
NO. GENERAL
2009 2012 2017
1. Males – Females 40.6 [13,461] 46.7 [25,026] 32.5 [11,190]
< 30 years 37.1 [3,493] 41.6 [10,052] 28.4 [4,680]
>= 30 years 43.1 [8,761] 49.5 [12,681] 35.6 [5,017]
2. Males 60.4 [8,280] 75.4 [14,404] 51.5 [10,800]
< 30 years 60.1 [1,825] 74.0 [5,152] 49.1 [4,469]
>= 30 years 60.8 [5,894] 75.7 [7,791] 52.5 [4,885]
3. Females 8.2 [5,064] 7.8 [10,622] 2.8 [371]
< 30 years 11.9 [1,657] 7.5 [4,900] 2.8 [208]
>= 30 years 6.3 [2,810] 7.8 [4,891] 2.6 [126]

Table 1.22. Prevalence of Smoking in the Past Month Among Workers (2009 & 2012),
and Prevalence of Smoking in the Past Week Based on Education (2017)
PAST MONTH PAST WEEK
NO. EDUCATION
2009 2012 2017
1. Males – Females 40.3 [13,356] 46.7 [25,026] 32.5 [11,190]
Lower education (<=
40.6 [783] 51.7 [1,283] 49.5 [621]
Elementary)
Middle Ed. (Junior-
45.2 [7,684] 53.3 [14,199] 39.2 [7,469]
Senior High)
Higher Ed. (>=D3) 33.3 [4,889] 36.2 [9,439] 21.9 [3,038]
2. Males 60.4 [8,242] 75.4 [14,404] 51.5 [10,800]
Lower Ed. (<=
66.0 [429] 80.7 [777] 66.7 [601]
Elementary)
Middle Ed. (Junior-
64.9 [4,943] 78.2 [9,089] 56.8 [7,224]
Senior High)
Higher Ed.(>=D3) 51.8 [2,870] 68.9 [4,470] 40.4 [2,924]
3. Females 8.2 [5,033] 7.8 [10,622] 2.8 [371]
Lower Ed.(<=
Elementary) 9.5 [347] 7.1 [506] 5.7 [20]
Middle Ed. (Junior- 9.1 [2,687] 8.9 [5,101] 3.7 [233]
Senior High)
Higher Ed. (>=D3) 6.8 [1,999] 6.7 [4,969] 1.7 [111]

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 52

Table 1.23. Prevalence of Smoking in the Past Month Among Workers (2009 & 2012),
and Prevalence of Smoking in the Past Week Based on Marital Status
(2017)
PAST MONTH PAST WEEK
NO. MARITAL STATUS
2009 2012 2017
1. Males – Females 40.3 [13,356] 46.7 [24,955] 32.5 [11,190]
Single 35.9 [4,937] 42.1 [8,656] 28.5 [3,939]
Married 43.2 [8,080] 49.5 [15,612] 35.5 [6,896]
Widow/Widower 41.7 [108] 32.0 [244] 23.5 [66]
Divorced 48.1 [216] 40.7 [339] 30.3 [191]
Living together 51.4 [70] 76.1 [71] 57.3 [55]
2. Males 60.4 [8,280] 75.5 [14,357] 51.5 [10,800]
Single 59.1 [2,663] 72.0 [4,607] 48.4 [3,763]
Married 60.5 [5,462] 77.0 [9,467] 53.1 [6,762]
Widower 80.0 [35] 74.1 [85] 57.0 [53]
Divorced 77.5 [71] 84.0 [125] 63.2 [134]
Living together 82.9 [41] 86.5 [52] 72.2 [52]
3. Females 8.2 [5,033] 7.8 [10,133] 2.8 [371]
Single 8.5 [2,253] 8.1 [3,823] 2.9 [173]
Married 6.1 [2,548] 7.1 [5,939] 1.8 [122]
Widow 23.3 [73] 9.4 [151] 7.0 [13]
Divorced 33.8 [142] 15.4 [194] 13.4 [56]
Living together 7.4 [27] 47.4 [14] 12.5 [3]

Table 1.24. Prevalence of Smoking in the Past Month Among Workers (2009 & 2012),
and Prevalence of Smoking in the Past Week Based on Sector of Work
(2017)
PAST MONTH PAST WEEK
NO. SECTOR OF WORK
2009 2012 2017
1. Males – Females 40.3 [13,356] 46.7 [25,026] 32.5 [11,190]
1. Agriculture/Plantation 32.2 [1,328] 55.2 [1,026] 41.0 [391]
2. Mining & Excavation 51.1 [268] 66.9 [782] 54.8 [258]
3. Processing Industry 34.8 [2,010] 49.6 [5,418] 37.4 [1,830]
4. Electricity. Gas.Fresh water - 53.1 [1,669] 35.0 [451]
5. Construction 65.8 [924] 70.9 [802] 44.4 [1,151]
6 Trade/Restaurant/ 40.6 [2,336] 47.2 [5,127] 30.2 [3,290]
Accomodation
7. Transportation. 45.8 [2,445] 52.4 [1,975] 34.4 [579]
Warehousing &
Communication
8. Finance/Real Estate/ 42.4 [1,744] 45.9 [3,818] 30.1 [1,951]
Rental
9. Social services 32.4 [2,406] 28.4 [4,414] 25.1 [1,289]

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 53

 PAST MONTH PAST WEEK
NO. SECTOR OF WORK
2009 2012 2017
2. Males 60.4 [8,280] 75.4 [14,404] 51.5 [10,800]
1. Agriculture/Plantation 57.8 [694] 75.0 [727] 59.2 [386]
2. Mining & Excavation 56.8 [234] 76.5 [672] 62.7 [254]
3. Processing Industry 56.8 [1,161] 77.3 [3,291] 55.8 [1,792]
4. Electricity, gas & Fresh - 74.4 [1,114] 47.6 [442]
Water
5. Construction 75.4 [768] 81.9 [668] 57.5 [1,130]
6. Trade/Restaurant/ 62.8 [1,351] 75.9 [2,905] 50.7 [3,159]
Accomodation
7. Transportation, 59.9 [1,773] 73.6 [1,339] 48.9 [563]
Warehousing &
Communication
8. Finance/Real Estate/ 60.9 [1,128] 73.2 [2,203] 47.6 [1,914]
Rental
9. Social services 54.0 [1,171] 72.9 [1,485] 48.4 [1,160]
3. Females 8.2 [5,064] 7.8 [10,622] 2.8 [371]
1. Agriculture/Plantation 3.4 [618] 7.0 [299] 1.7 [5]
2. Mining & Excavation 4.0 [25] 8.2 [110] 4.8 [3]
3. Processing Industry 4.2 [35] 6.6 [2,122] 2.0 [34]
4. Electricity, Gas & Fresh - 10.3 [555] 1.4 [5]
water
5. Construction 16.8 [25] 16.4 [134] 3.2 [20]
6 Trade/Restaurant/ 9.4 [91] 9.8 [605] 2.7 [127]
Accomodation
7. Transportation, 7.8 [51] 7.9 [636] 2.8 [15]
Warehousing &
Communication
8. Finance/Real Estate/ 8.1 [49] 8.6 [1,615] 1.4 [35]
Rental
9. Social services 11.7 [142] 5.9 [2,929] 4.7 [127]

Table 1.25. Prevalence of Smoking in the Past Month Among Workers (2009 & 2012),
and in the Past Week Based on Domicile (2017)

PAST MONTH PAST WEEK

NO. DOMICILE
2009 2012 2017
1. Males – Females 40.6 [13,461] 46.7 [25,026] 32.5 [11,190]
Living with:
Living alone 41.2 [1,068] 51.4 [2,705] 32.3 [917]
With family/brother/sister 40.2 [9,756] 45.4 [20,633] 32.2 [9,584]
With a friend 44.2 [1,363] 58.0 [1,544] 39.3 [618]
Type of domicile:
Parents’ house 38.8 [4,764] 34.8 [2,842] 30.3 [4,340]
Brother – sister’s /friend’s/ 41.4 [ 812] 40.2 [573] 32.2 [531]
relative’s
Own house 39.7 [4,451] 37.7 [3,119] 33.5 [3,451]
Boarding/dormitory/mess/ 44.0 [ 3,268] 44.4 [2,153] 35.2 [2,681]
barrack
Apartment 47.2 [53] 53.8 [44] 32.5 [27]
Others 60.0 [30] 39.1 [218] 38.9 [143]

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 54

 PAST MONTH PAST WEEK
NO. DOMICILE
2009 2012 2017
2. Males 60.4 [8,280] 75.4 [14,404] 51.5 [10,800]
Living with:
Alone 56.6 [671] 72.8 [1,758] 47.5 [879]
Family/brother- sister/ 59.5 [6,149] 75.7 [11,492] 51.9 [9,299]
A friend 63.4 [847] 78.1 [1,069] 53.5 [558]
Type of domicile:
Parents’ house 61.7 [2,684] 64.3 [2,842] 51.9 [4,183]
Brother’s – sister’s/ 62.8 [484] 64.9 [573] 52.2 [518]
friend’s/relative’s
Own house 57.3 [2,933] 61.4 [3,119] 50.7 [3,376]
Boarding/dormitory/mess/ 62.4 [2,080] 65.8 [2,153] 52.1 [2,545]
Barrack
Apartment 64.9 [37] 74.6 [44] 47.9 [23]
Others 66.7 [24] 63.0 [218] 52.4 [141]
3. Females 8.2 [5,064] 7.8 [10,622] 2.8 [371]
Living with:
Alone 14.5 [393] 11.7 [947] 3.6 [36]
With family/ brother/sister 6.6 [3,533] 7.2 [9,141] 2.3 [272]
With a friend 12.2 [509] 2.6 [475] 11.2 [59]
Type of domicile:
Parents’ house 8.9 [2,056] 3.5 [147] 2.4 [150]
Brother’s/Sister’s/friend’s/ 8.8 [319] 5.3 [33] 1.8 [12]
relative’s house
Own house 4.7 [1,485] 2.9 [102] 1.9 [69]
Boarding/dormitory/mess/ 11.1 [1,165] 5.1 [92] 4.9 [134]
Barrack
Apartment 6.3 [16] 15.6 [5] 11.4 [4]
Others 33.3 [6] 4.6 [11] 2.0 [2]
The prevalence of smoking in the 2017 survey among married
workers as a total. and among male workers is higher than others.
On the other hand, the smoking prevalence is higher among
divorced women workers and in the group of living together without
marriage.
The prevalence of smoking in the past week according to the
sector of work, the second highest is in the sectors of mining and
construction. A difference is seen in the prevalence if classified
according to gender. The second highest is found among male
workers in the sectors of mining and agriculture. In the group of
women workers the second highest is in the sectors of mining and
services.
The prevalence of smoking in the past week both among male
and female workers who live in their own house tends to be lower
than those living with the family or a friend. If the prevalence is
related with domicile, there is not much difference in prevalence
among male workers with different domiciles. However, the
prevalence tends to be higher among women living in an apartment.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 55

 b. Drinking
Different is the prevalence of drinking. which tends to be lower
among workers in all sectors of work, and a decrease is seen in the
surveys of 2009. 2012 and 2017. As is the case with smoking, the
prevalence of drinking is far much higher among the male workers.
The surveys of 2009. 2012 and 2017 show that the prevalence
is higher among the younger of age (< 30 years). There is a tendency
of a decrease in the age group of < 30 years as well as >=30 years.
The same illustration is seen among men and women workers.
From the level of education there is not much difference
among those with a low or middle education as is seen among male
workers as a total. But on the contrary among women workers with
middle education that shows a higher rate, while the prevalence is
low among those with a lower and higner education.

Table 1.26. Prevalence of Drinking inthe Past Month Based on Gender, Drug Survey
on Workers, 2009, 2012 & 2017

MENURUT JENIS PAST MONTH DRINKING

NO.
KELAMIN 2009 2012 2017
1. Males + Females 25.6 [13,461] 19.6 [25,026] 10.2 [3,505]
2. Males 35.0 [8,280] 30.7 [14,404] 14.7 [3,075]
3. Females 10.0 [5,064] 4.4 [10,622] 3.2 [427]

Table 1.27. Past Month Drinking Prevalence Based on Gender and Age, Drug Survey
on Workers, 2009, 2012 & 2017

PAST MONTH
NO. GENERAL
2009 2012 2017
1. Males – Females 26.1 [12,254] 19.1 [22,734] 10.2 [3,505]
Age < 30 years 28.9 [349] 20.6 [10,052] 11.0 [1,803]
>= 30 years 25.0 [5,008] 17.9 [12,681] 8.7 [1,224]
2. Males 35.3 [7,719] 30.2 [12,943] 14.7 [3,075]
< 30 years 42.7 [1,825] 35.4 [5,152] 16.5 [1,503]
>= 30 years 33.1 [5,859] 26.8 [7,791] 12.0 [1,112]
3. Females 10.0 [4,467] 4.3 [9,791] 3.2 [427]
< 30 years 13.5 [1,657] 5.0 [4,900] 4.1 [299]
>= 30 years 8.0 [2,810] 3.7 [4,891] 2.1 [102]

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 56

Table 1.28. Past Month Drinking Prevalence Based on Gender and Education, Drug
Survey on Workers, 2009, 2012 & 2017
PAST MONTH
NO. EDUCATION
2009 2012 2017
1. Males – Females 25.6 [13,356] 21.2 [7,659] 10.2 [3,505]
Lower Ed. (<= Elementary) 28.2 [78] 20.8 [456] 13.9 [174]
Middle (Junior-Senior
28.8 [7,684] 24.8 [4,483] 12.3 [2,337]
High)
Higher Ed. (>=D3) 20.2 [4,889] 15.4 [2,693] 7.0 [978]
2. Males 35.1 [8,242] 32.6 [4,372] 14.7 [3,075]
Lower Ed. (<= Elementary) 42.2 [777] 32.9 [255] 18.2 [164]
Middle Ed. (Junior-Senior
38.7 [4,943] 35.9 [2,772] 16.0 [2,069]
High)
Higher Ed. (>=D3) 27.8 [2,870] 25.8 [1,328] 11.5 [833]
3. Females 10.0 [5,033] 6.1 [3,287] 3.2 [427]
Lower Ed. (<= Elementary) 11.0 [347] 5.5 [201] 2.8 [10]
Middle Ed. (Junior-Senior
10.4 [2,687] 6.9 [1,711] 4.2 [267]
High)
Higher Ed. (>=D3) 9.2 [1,999] 5.3 [1,365] 2.2 [145]

There is a distinct difference between workers living together

without marriage and divorced workersthat shows a higher
prevalence of drinking than married workers. The past month
drinking prevalence among workers living together without
marriage is quite high, although somewhat lower than in the 2009
and 2012 surveys. Among the women workers the prevalence of
drinking is higher in the group of divorced workers, and increased
compared to the 2012 survey, an indication that divorced women
are more prone to drinking.

Table 1.29. Prevalence of Past Month Drinking Based on Gender and Marital Status,
Drug Survey on Workers, 2009, 2012 & 2017
PAST MONTH
NO. MARITAL STATUS
2009 2012 2017
1. Males – Females 25.5 [13,356] 19.6 [24,955] 10.2 [3,505]
Single 27.8 [4,937] 21.6 [1,870] 11.6 [1,607]
Married 23.7 [8,080] 18.4 [2,866] 8.7 [1,693]
Widow/Widower 24.1 [108] 13.5 [33] 9.3 [26]
Divorced 40.3 [216] 20.6 [70] 21.0 [132]
Living together 42.9 [70] 52.1 [37] 33.3 [32 ]
2. Males 35.0 [8,280] 30.8 [14,357] 14.7 [3,075]
Single 41.8 [2,663] 35.7 [1,644] 17.6 [1,373]
Married 31.3 [5,462] 28.1 [2,660] 12.5 [1,588]
Widower 37.1 [35] 29.4 [25] 17.2 [16]
Divorced 45.1 [71] 40.0 [50] 27.4 [58]
Living together 65.9 [41] 61.5 [32] 41.7 [30]
3. Females 10.0 [5,033] 4.4 [10,133] 3.2 [427]
Single 11.1 [2,253] 5.6 [226] 3.8 [232]
Married 7.2 [2,548] 3.4 [206] 1.6 [105]
Widow 17.8 [73] 5.0 [8] 5.3 [10]
Divorced 38.0 [142] 9.3 [20] 17.7 [74]
Living together 7.4 [27] 26.3 [5] 8.3 [2]

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 57

 In most of the sectors of work the prevalence of drinking
among male workers indicates a decrease, except some increase in
the mining and excavation, finance/real estate/rental, and social
services. As regard women workers, almost all sectors indicate a
decrease except in the processing industry there is some increase.

Table 1.30. Prevalence of Drinking in the Past Month Based on Gender and Work
Sector, Drug Survey on Workers, 2009, 2012 & 2017

PAST MONTH
NO. WORK SECTOR
2009 2012 2017
1. Males – Females 25.5 [13,356] 19.6 [25,026] 10.2 [3,505]
1. Agriculture/Plantation 21.7 [1,328] 17.4 [179] 10.1 [96]
2. Mining & Excavation 28.4 [268] 32.2 [252] 15.5 [73]
3. Processing Industry 15.1 [2,010] 18.4 [997] 7.3 [359]
4. Electricity, Gas, Fresh water - 18.4 [307] 9.7 [125]
5. Construction 44.7 [924] 31.7 [254] 12.6 [326]
6 Trade/Restaurant/ 30.6 [2,336] 23.9 [1,226] 11.4 [1,238]
Accomodation
7. Transportation, 26.1 [2,445] 23.5 [464] 10.9 [184]
Warehousing &
Communication
8. Finance/Real Estate/ Rental 26.2 [1,744] 18.7 [713] 9.3 [599]
9. Social Services 22.9 [2,406] 17.4 [179] 9.8 [505]
2. Males 35.0 [8,280] 30.7 [14,404] 14.7 [3,075]
1. Agriculture/Plantation 36.2 [694] 23.0 [167] 14.1 [92]
2. Mining & Excavation 28.6 [234] 36.6 [246] 17.0 [69]
3. Processing Industry 24.1 [1,161] 28.3 [931] 10.6 [342]
4. Electricity, Gas, and Water - 25.9 [288] 12.8 [119]
5. Construction 50.4 [768] 36.7 [245] 15.8 [310]
6 Trade/Restaurant/ 43.4 [1,351] 37.5 [2,905] 17.2 [1,070]
Accomodation
7. Transportation, 32.9 [1,773] 32.3 [432] 14.8 [170]
Warehousing &
Communication
8. Finance/Real Estate/ Rental 32.7 [1,128] 28.6 [630] 13.4 [538]
9. Social services 32.0 [1,171] 27.0 [401] 15.2 [365]
3. Females 10.0 [5,064] 4.4 [10,622] 3.2 [427]
1. Agriculture/Plantation 5.3 [618] 4.0 [12] 1.3 [4]
2. Mining & Penggalian 20.0 [25] 5.5 [6] 4.8 [3]
3. Processing Industry 2.2 [35] 3.1 [66] 1.0 [16]
4. Electricity, Gas, and Water - 3.4 [19] 1.4 [5]
5. Construction 14.1 [25] 6.7 [9] 2.6 [16]
6 Trade/Restaurant/ 12.7 [91] 6.2 [137] 3.6 [168]
Accomodation
7. Transportation, 7.5 [51] 5.0 [32] 2.6 [14]
Warehousing &
Communication
8. Finance/Real Estate/Rental 14.2 [49] 5.1 [83] 2.5 [61]
9. Social services 14.0 [142] 3.5 [102] 5.1 [140]

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 58

 Workers who live together with a friend have the greatest
vulnerability to drinking compared with those living alone or with
the family/brother/sister. Females living with a friend are the most
vulnerable to the drinking habit. This phenomenon is distinctly seen
in the 2012 survey.

Table 1.31. Prevalence of Past Month Drinking. Based on Gender, Domicile Sharing,
Domicile, Drug Survey on Workers, 2009, 2012 & 2017
PAST MONTH
NO. DOMICILE
2009 2012 2017
1. Males – Females 25.5 [13,461] 19.6 [25,026] 10.2 [3,505]
Living with:
Alone 29.0 [1,068] 24.2[2,705] 13.5 [384]
With family/brother/sister 23.5 [9,756] 18.2 [6,461] 9.5 [2,836]
With a friend 33.3 [1,363] 28.8 [408] 17.1 [268]
Type of domicile:
Parents’ house 27.1 [4,764] 19.3 [1,506] 9.7 [1,384]
Brother’s/sister’s/friend’s/ 30.4 [812] 25.1 [345] 12.4 [205]
relative’s house
Own house 20.1 [4,451] 15.7 [1,253] 8.3 [850]
Boaarding/dormitory/mess/ 29.6 [3,268] 25.0 [1,163] 13.2 [1,007]
barrack
Apartment 39.6 [53] 35.1 [ 28] 14.5 [12]
Others 30.0 [30] 15.6 [ 80] 2.5 [2]
2. Males 35.0 [8,280] 30.7 [14,404] 14.7 [3,075]
Living with:
Alone 36.2 [671] 33.5 [481] 18.4 [340]
With family/brother/sister 32.4 [6,149] 29.7 [11,492] 14.1 [2,522]
With a friend 41.7 [847] 37.0 [1,069] 19.0 [198]
Type of domicile:
Parents’ house 38.9 [2,684] 33.8 [1,506] 14.8 [1,195]
Brother’s/sister’s/ 43.8 [484] 38.6 [345] 19.1 [189]
friend’s/relative’s house
Own house 27.4 [2,933] 24.4 [1,253] 11.6 [776]
Boarding/dormitory/mess/ 38.5 [2,080] 35.1 [1,163] 17.6 [862]
Barrack
Apartment 51.4 [37] 45.9 [ 28] 20.8 [10]
Others 33.3 [24] 22.9 [ 80] 15.6 [42]
3. Females 10.0 [5,064] 4.4 [10,622] 3.2 [427]
Living with:
Alone 17.0 [393] 7.0 [947] 4.5 [44]
With family/brother/sister 7.8 [3,533] 3.8 [2,858] 2.7 [313]
With a friend 18.7 [509] 10.5 [475] 13.1 [69]
Type of domicile:
Parents’ house 11.4 [2,056] 4.1 [173] 3.0 [187]
Brother’s/sister’s/friend’s 10.0 [319] 6.5 [42] 2.5 [16]
relative’s house
Own house 5.3 [1,485] 3.1 [109] 2.1 [74]
Boarding/dormitory/mess/ 13.4 [1,165] 6.6 [121] 5.3 [145]
Barrack
Apartment 12.5 [16] 15.2 [ 5] 5.7 [2]
Others 16.7 [6] 5.3 [ 13] 3.1 [3]

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 59

 c. Sexual Behaviour
Prevalence of Sexual Behaviour without marriage in the past
year among drug abuse workers is far more higher than non drug
abusers, as is seen in the prevalence of past year sexual behaviour
of unmarried workers. Their rate of sexual activity before marriage
is much higher among drug abuse workers.
Also with the prevalence of sexual behavior in the past year of
divorced workers that is likely to be higher among drug abuser
workers. However, it is not possible to present an accurate
illustration on the vulnerability of sexual behavior without marriage,
as several workers may be divorced in a period less than a year in
the past, so part of their sexual activity is actually still in the period
of marriage. Among married workers there is almost no difference
in their past year’s sexual behavior, both among male and female
workers. If seen from its total rate, male drug abuser workers have
a higher prevalence compared to non drug abusers. But on the
contrary with female workers where non drug abusers have a higher
prevalence of sexual behavior.

Table 1.32. Prevalence of Past Year Sexual Activity Based on Classification of

Workers, Gender and Marital Status
MARITAL STATUS
WORKER’S NOT TOTAL
NO. MARRIED DIVORCED
CLASSIFICATION MARRIED
M F M F M F M F
1. N Total 7,852 6,067 12,730 6,661 305 604 20,887 13,332
Workers
Drug abuser 45.0 45.3 53.0 47.9 1.9 6.7 77.7 22.2
Non Drug abuser 37.3 45.5 61.3 50.0 1.4 4.5 60.5 39.4

From the total married workers, 91% admit having intercourse

with their husband/wife. No difference is found either among male
and female workers or among drug abuser workers and non drug
abuser workers. The conclusion is that approx 10% of married
workers have ever sexual relations with their partner that may be
their boy/girl friend, acquaintance, sex worker, same gender, or
even with a drug dealer.
Divorced or single workers are more vulnerable than married
workers in relation with their sexual behavior with different
partners, the more among drug abuser workers. The boy/girl friend
is the most chosen sex partner among single or divorced workers in
the past year. Another choice besides the boy/girl friend is a
common friend or acquaintance, with a higher rate among drug
abuser than non drug abuser workers. Those who admit to have
sexual relations with a drug dealer and the same gender the case is
almost the same among male and female workers, but the
prevalence of sexual relations with the same gender is higher among
single/unmarried male workers.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 60

Table 1.33. Distribution of Sex Partner in the Past Year Among Drug Abuser Workers,
Based on Marital Status

MARITAL STATUS
TOTAL
NO. SEX PARTNER SINGLE MARRIED DIVORCED
M F M F M F M F
1. N ever have sex 351 101 413 107 15 15 779 223
Sex Partner
Husband/wife 0.0 0.0 90.6 91.6 26.7 20.0 48.5 45.3
Boy/girl friend 45.3 28.7 14.0 2.8 53.3 60.0 28.9 18.4
Friend/Intimate
friend 27.9 6.9 11.9 1.9 26.7 0.0 19.4 4.0
Acquaintance 21.7 4.0 9.4 2.8 13.3 0.0 15.0 3.1
Sex worker 16.0 2.0 9.7 1.9 6.7 0.0 12.5 1.8
Drug dealer 3.1 2.0 1.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.3
Same gender 3.1 3.0 1.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.8
Others 2.3 4.0 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.2

Table 1.34. Distribution of Sex Partner in the Past Year Among Non Drug Abuseer
Workers Based on Marital Status

MARITAL STATUS
TOTAL
NO. SEX PARTNER SINGLE MARRIED DIVORCED
M F M F M F M F
1. N ever have sex 7,501 5,966 12,317 6,554 290 589 20,108 13,109
Sex Partner
Husband/wife 0.0 0.0 91.0 90.4 32.8 17.5 56.2 46.0
Boy/girl friend 18.0 5.3 3.7 0.8 16.2 13.9 9.2 3.4
Friend/intimate
friend 7.8 1.0 2.4 0.5 7.9 2.7 4.5 0.8
Acquaintance 5.5 0.4 1.6 0.3 5.5 1.5 3.1 0.4
Sex worker 2.7 0.2 1.2 0.3 3.4 0.8 1.8 0.3
Drug dealer 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2
Same gender 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.2
Others 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.3

Among the total drug abuser workers, 0.9% of males and 0.1%
of females have ever used drugs for sexual intercourse. The highest
rate of distribution of drug use is found among male divorced drug
abusers (2%). Likewise with divorced female drug abuser workers
the rate of drug use for sex is relatively higher. The reason for drug
use quite vary. In general, male workers say for longer endurance,
while for female workers it is for having sex fantasy.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 61

 In using drugs for sex male and female workers the most
preferable choice is their boy/girl friend. The highest rate for using
drugs with their boy friend is among is among single female workers
(44%). While divorced male workers have the highest rate of drug
use for sex with their girl friend (50%). It shows that female workers
having sex with their boy friend and drug use are highly vulnerable.
The same condition is among divorced male workers. However, it is
not much less among married couples having sex with drugs, male
workers 30% and female workers 21%.
The drugs used for sex quite vary according to gender and
marital status. But generally the most consumed for sexual activity
among male workers are shabu and marihuana (Cannabis/Ganja),
in particular workers with a single status. While among female
workers the most consumed is ecstasy, the majority among single
female workers (22%), and among married female workers 21%.
Mosst interesting is that divorced female workers prefer only shabu
for sex.

Table 1.35. Distribution of Reasons for Drug Consumption in Sex Activities Among
Drug Abuser Workers Based on Gender and Marital Status.

MARITAL STATUS
TOTAL
NO. SEXUAL ACTIVITY SINGLE MARRIED DIVORCED
M F M F M F M F
1. N Ever have sex 351 101 413 107 15 15 779 223

Ever consumed a 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.2 2.0 0.3 0.9 0.2
drug for sex

Reason for
consuming a drug
for sex
Heighten libido 54.8 33.3 50.4 14.3 33.3 0.0 51.5 20.0
Sex fantasy 54.2 55.6 50.4 28.6 50.0 0.0 52.6 36.0

Longer 68.5 22.2 63.5 35.7 33.3 0.0 64.4 28.0

endurance

Barter with sex 27.4 22.2 9.6 7.1 16.7 0.0 16.5 12.0
partners

To get money 16.4 33.3 7.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 10.3 16.0
Others 6.8 0.0 3.5 7.1 0.0 0.0 4.6 4.0

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 62

Table 1.36. Distribution of Sex Partners When Using Drugs Based on Gender and
Marital Status
MARITAL STATUS
TOTAL
NO. SEX ACTIVITY SINGLE MARRIED DIVORCED
M F M F M F M F
1. N ever have sex 351 101 413 107 15 15 779 223
Ever used a drug
for sex 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.2 2.0 0.3 0.9 0.2
Sex partner when
using a drug
Husband/wife 5.5 0.0 30.4 21.4 33.3 0.0 21.1 12.0
Boy/girl friend 35.6 44.4 14.8 14.3 50.0 0.0 23.7 24.0
Friend/Intimate
friend 32.9 11.1 14.8 14.3 33.3 0.0 22.2 12.0
Acquaintance 24.7 22.2 11.3 7.1 16.7 0.0 16.5 12.0
Sex worker 27.4 0.0 10.4 14.3 0.0 0.0 16.5 8.0
Drug dealer 8.2 0.0 1.7 7.1 0.0 0.0 4.1 4.0
Same gender 2.7 0.0 1.7 7.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 4.0
Others 2.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0

Table 1.37. Distribution of Drugs Used for Sex Among Drug Abuser Workers Based
on Gender and Marital Status
MARITAL STATUS
DRUGS USED FOR TOTAL
NO. SINGLE MARRIED DIVORCED
SEX
M F M F M F M F
1. N ever have sex 351 101 413 107 15 15 779 223
Ever used a drug 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.2 2.0 0.3 0.9 0.2
ffor sex
Type of drug used
for sex
Cannabis/Ganja 43.8 11.0 33.0 14.3 50.0 0.0 37.6 12.0
(cannabis, gele,
cimeng,
marihuana)
Cocaine 5.5 11.0 6.1 14.3 16.7 0.0 6.2 12.0
Shabu 47.9 0.0 40.0 21.4 16.7 6.7 42.3 12.0
Ecstasy (inex, i, 19.2 22.2 13.0 21.4 16.7 0.0 15.5 20.0
XTC)
Heroin/putau 11.0 0.0 6.1 7.1 16.7 0.0 8.2 4.0
Tranquilisers 11.0 11.0 12.2 7.1 16.7 0.0 11.9 8.0
(valium, lexo/
lexotan, nipam,
BK, rohypnol,
sanax)
Others 9.6 0.0 7.0 7.1 16.7 0.0 8.2 4.0

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 63

 8. Pattern of Drug Trafficking Among Workers and in the Work Place.
a. Drug Abuse in the Living Environment and in the Work Place.
One of the methods used to identify the number of drug
abusers in the work place and living environment is to ask the
respondents to identify drug abusers in their environment.
Drug abuser respondents know much more about drug
abusers in their environment than non drug abuser respondents.
This was known from results of the 2012 and 2017 surveys. Both
surveys indicate the same trend, that drugs are mostly abused
among friends outside the work place, neighbours in their living
environment and friends in the work place. Drug abuse still occurs
among the closest people of respondents, by a brother or sister,
parents and married couples. The two surveys also indicate that
there is no distinct difference in the prevalence of drug abuse in each
group of drug abusers.

Table 1.38. Knowledge about People who are Suspected of Drug Abuse

NON DRUG DRUG

TOTAL
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ABUSER ABUSER
NO.
PEOPLE
2012 2017 2012 2017 2012 2017
N 23,859 33,388 1,167 1,009 25,026 34,397
1. Friends in the work place 2.7 2.3 16.1 13.5 3.3 2.6
2. Friends otside the work 8 6.4 28.4 27.9 8.9 7.1
place
3. Neighbour in the living 5.2 5.1 16.9 17.1 5.8 5.5
environment
4. Brother/sister/relative 0.7 0.6 2.7 4.3 0.8 0.8
5. Parents 0.2 0.2 0.9 1.5 0.3 0.3
6. Boy friend/girl friend/ 0.3 0.4 2 2.6 0.4 0.4
wife/husband

Interviewed workers told that drug trafficking occurs much

more in the residence than in the work place. Drug trafficking in the
work place is more concealed; not easy to know as people use drugs
when they are not working, and buy the drug outside the work place.
Drug trafficking in the residential environment is concentrated at a
certain place (drug pocket). As was told by a respondent from South
Sulawesi that it is not too difficult to get drugs.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 64

 “Yes, it is an open secret, I think it is everywhere. In the office,
there is always a way if we want it. Likewise in the residential
environment, if we want a drug there is always somebody who
has access. I am chairman of the neighbourhood association.
There were some incidents. A friend said another friend came
and brought the drug. But generally it is hard to find a really
sterile spot. Yeah, I say it is available 90%. (In-depth interview,
non drug abuser worker, Riau Islands)

“In Makassar we can easily find drugs, anywhere, as long as

we need the drug we can find the seller” (In-depth interview,
non drug abuser, South Sulawesi).
A worker told maybe in the work place there is drug trafficking,
but difficult to be sure because there was a case a worker was
detected to use drugs. The company that found out one of the
workers used drugs shall apply strict control on all workers to avoid
another incident to occur.
“I don’t know. I usually go straight home after work and
rest…so if they talk about drugs I just leave them (In-depth
interview, non drug abuser worker, North Kamlimantan).
“At my work place, because there happened an incident so the
management was more careful, so it will not happen again”
(In-depth interview, non drug abuser worker, Riau Islands).
Workers who consume drugs usually get the drug from their
co worker friends, or from a friend in their residence, or in
entertainment centers. Many of the workers consume drugs when
they hang out with friends, at a entertainment center or another
safe place.
“My work place is safe. In my home environment. there is a
friend, and if I havesome money, yess…I join with my friends…”
(In-depth interview, drug abuser worker, West Kalimantan).
“In the work place, surely we are in a vicious circle, if in another
environment, it depends on our friends. with whom we
associate. The problem is everyday I’m mostly at the work
place than at home“ (In-depth interview, drug abuser worker,
East Kalimantan).
In some of the cities, there is information that it is totally
impossible for drug trafficking and drug abuse, since big companies
are very strict in the control of their employees’ work health
condition. Some of the companies even prohibit their workers to
smoke in the work place and if workers violate the regulation, they
will get a warning and be dismissed if the worker is known to
consume drugs.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 65

 “Within PUSRI it is very strict. even smoking is prohibited.
Workers who are known to violate the regulations shall be
dismissed” (In-depth interview, non drug abuser worker, South
Sumatera).

b. Offer of Drugs in the Residential environment and Work Place

Both surveys indicate that drug offers still exist around
respondents. Drugs are mostly offered by a friend outside the work
environment, by a friend/neighbour and a friend in the work place.
No difference is seen in both surveys related to the pattern of offer,
likewise not much different in prevalence.

Drugs are not only offered to drug abuser respondents, but also
to non drug abuser respondents. The offer is not only done by drug
dealers, even persons close to the respondents have ever offered
drugs to respondents. And if looked upon its prevalence, drug dealers
have a lower prevalence than close friends in the work place or
respondents’ residence.

More than one-fourth (1/4) of the total drug abuser

respondents admit they have been offered drugs by friends
outside the work place. The rate is much higher than the offer to
non drug abuser respondents who admitted they have ever been
offered by a friend outside the work place showing a prevalence of
only 3%.

On the whole, the pattern of respondents being offered

by different sources and its prevalence do not differ greatly in
the surveys of 2012 and 2017. This is different with the prevalence
of respondents offering drugs to other people that shows a
slight decrease in 2017. The 2017 survey shows that the total
respondents who admit having ever offered drugs to other people is
0.2%, lower than the total in 2012 (1.1%). This decrease in
prevalence is seen among drug abuser as well as non drug abuser
respondents. In the group of drug abuser respondents the rate is
10.3% in 2012, while in 2017 only 5.9%. Likewise with the prevalence
in the group of non drug abuser respondents, showing a decrease
from 0.7% to 0.1%.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 66

Table 1.39. Prevalence of Ever been Offered and Ever Offered Drugs
NON DRUG DRUG ABUSER TOTAL
NO. EVER BEEN OFFERED AND ABUSER
EVER OFFERED
2012 2017 2012 2017 2012 2017
N 23,859 33,388 1,167 1,009 25,026 34,397
1. Ever having offered to other 0.7 0.1 10.3 5.9 1.1 0.2
people
2. Ever been offered by other 3.9 35.6 4.8
people
3. Ever been offered by:
A friend in the work place 1 1.4 14.4 12.9 1.6 1.7
A friend outside the work 2.8 3 25.1 27.8 3.9 3.7
place
Friend/neighbour in the 1.5 1.5 13.8 13.5 2.1 1.8
residential environment
Boy friend/girl 0.3 0.6 3.2 3.1 0.4 0.7
friend/partner/wife/
husband
Brother/sister 0.3 0.6 2.8 3.5 0.5 0.7
Younger/older brother 0.3 0.6 2.7 2.6 0.4 0.7
sister
Dealer 0.8 1 10.6 11.1 1.2 1.3
Parents 0.2 0.6 2.5 2.5 0.3 0.6
Others 0.3 0.6 2.5 3.1 0.4 0.7
Drug abuser workers are vulnerable targets of drug trafficking.
They are workers with a good income and are demanded to show
good work. These workers from the lowest level up to managers
have their respective responsibility. The drug abuser workers have
their different reasons for taking drugs. Some because of personal
problems in the work place as well within the family, economic
pressures, conflict with a friend or in the work place, etc.
“I’m sure that each has his own personal reasons. He must have
certain reasons. Myself, I have personal problems not
economic problems. I have problems with my family so I tend
to bring to that….(drug abuse) (In-depth interview, non drug
abuser worker, Riau Islands).
Workers are susceptible to drug abuse because economically
they are able to buy drugs. In fact, because of work demands people
use drugs to keep their stamina so they can work for a longer time,
or if there is much work, or they want to lose their weariness after
hard work. The drugs mostly used are tranquilizers, such as shabu
and ecstasy.
“I think those who are jobless usually take drugs, but the cheap
ones, like glue. Then thegroup of workers, they mostly take
shabu and ecstasy, because they have the money” (In-depth
interview, non drug abuser, Riau).
“...You can get ecstasy at the night entertainment centers, from
the younger age to adults consume these drugs. Generally,
workers in the mining sector take shabu, and street singers take
Zenith (Carnopen)” (In-depth interview, non drug abuser
worker, South Kalimantan).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 67

 c. Trafficking and Access to Drugs
Based on the knowledge of respondents drugs are easily to get
outside the work place not in the work place. The 2017 survey
indicates that the prevalence of respondents stating the easy access
to drugs outside the work place is 1.8 – 4%, which is not much
different from the 2012 survey (1.5% - 3/1%). The easy access to get
drugs outside the work place rates higher than in the work place that
is only 1%.
Drug abuser respondents know much better about the access
to get drugs than non abuser workers. In 2017 the prevalence
somewhat increased compared to 2012.
In general, both surveys indicate that the access to get drugs
in the work place is quite difficult. Only 13.5% of drug abuser
respondents state the easy access to drugs outside the work place.
More than ¾ of respondents have no knowledge on the access to
drugs either in or outside the work place.

Table 1.40. Prevalence of Respondents’ Knowledge on the Access to Drugs

NON DRUG
DRUG ABUSER TOTAL
NO. ACCESS TO DRUGS ABUSER
2012 2017 2012 2017 2012 2017
N 23,859 33,388 1,167 1,009 25,026 34,397
1. Access to drugs in the
work place
Very difficult 10.3 18.1 17.7 22.3 10.7 18.2
Quite difficult 2.2 3 9.4 6.2 2.5 3.1
Quite easy 0.8 1.1 4.8 5 1 1.2
Very easy 0.5 0.4 1.8 2.1 0.6 0.4
Unknown 84 75.5 64.3 61.3 83 75.1
2. Access to drugs outside
the work place
Very difficult 6 9 11.3 10.3 6.2 9
Quite difficult 2.8 3 11.8 8.3 3.2 3.1
Quite easy 2.7 3.7 10.8 13.5 3.1 4
Very easy 1.3 1.7 4.5 6.4 1.5 1.8
Unknown 85 80 59.9 58.5 83.8 79.4

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 68

 More than half of the total respondents stated that the
situation in the residential environment is quite safe to associate
with each other, or have a walk in the evening. There is some
decrease in the perception on the condition of environmental
security in 2017 compared to 2012. There is also a decrease in the
identification of many loitering young people in the neighbourhood,
but shows some increase in indentifying drug trafficking. Drug
abuser respondents as well as non drug abusers also expressed their
perception on the increase in drug trafficking.
The prediction of the 2017 survey on the decline in the
condition of environmental security and the increase of drugs in
circulation may become a threat to the continuation of drug abuse
and trafficking.
Table 1.41. Prevalence of Respondents’ Knowledge on the Neighbourhood Situation

NON DRUG
DRUG ABUSER TOTAL
ABUSER
NO. RESPONDENTS’ KNOWLEDGE
2012 2017 2012 2017 2012 2017

N 23,859 33,388 1,167 1,009 25,026 34,397

1. Knowledge on the
environmental situation

Safe to walk alon in the evening 59.9 53.2 63.2 53.9 60.1 53.2

Safe to play or associate 69 63 69.7 64 69 63

Many loitering young

22.6 17.2 32.6 27 23.1
people/school dropouts 17.5

Much drinking in my
14.5 13.4 28.8 30.9 15.2
neighbourhood 13.9

Much drug trafficking 5.6 6.9 14.3 19.2 6 7.3

The drugs in circulation in all locations of the survey are

dominated by marihuana/cannabis/ganja, shabu, ecstasy and the
pill. Other substances are aibon glue, over-the-counter drugs mixed
with soft drinks. In East Nusa Tenggara kecubung leaf is much
consumed. These last three mentioned are generally used by
street children or by people who cannot afford to buy expensive
drugs.
“The information I received. many adolescents use aibon glue
(inhale), consume drugs against cough and headache mixed
with soft drinks.” Also observation on the circulation of
Cannabis/Ganja and shabu” (In-depth interview, non drug
abuser worker, North Sulawesi).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 69

 “In my opinion, usually unemployed people take cheap drugs
or inhalants like glue. Then the workers, the majority take
shabu and ecstasy, because they have the money” (In-depth
interview, non drug abuser worker, Riau).
The trend of shabu and medicines tend to escalate in these last
few years, which agrees with the seizures of shabu and medicines
lately. Nowadays people do not consume koplo pill anymore, but
drugs with a stronger effect such as carnopen/zenith, flaka, PCC,
CC4, blue sapphire, yellow pill. In S.E. Sulawesi PCC is already in
circulation before the case was broadcasted by television in early
September.
“...In the old times there is cannabis/ganja, shabu and
ecstasy…nowadays, there are so many what do you a
ll…gorilla…synthetic cannabis/ganja” (In-depth interview, non
drug abuser worker, East Java).
“Cannabis/ganja, shabu, psychotropic, somadril those drugs
are in circulation. Not long aago PCC was frequently found.
Also ecstasy, flaka, hanoman, gorilla” (In-depth interview, non
drug abuser worker, SE. Sulawesi).
“Here, now, the most available are Carnophen or Zenith, also
shabu and ecstasy, CC4 and blue saphyr are already in
circulation” (In-depth interview, non drug abuser worker,
South Kalimantan).
9. Workers Receiving Information and their Involvement in the
Program of Prevention and Eradication of Illicit Drug Trafficking.
a. Drug Prevention Activities in the Work Place.
The largest source of drug information comes from television.
Newspapers, banners, balihos and the internet. Other sources also
mentioned are Facebook, Youtube, Instagram and other
applications. Others say they receive drug information from
seminars, information sessions in the company, from BNNP, Granat
(NGO, Anti Drug Movement). Some respondents say they get the
information from fellow workers.
“..About drugs we get from talks. Also from television news.
Newspapers, but the most frequent from TV, or from the
internet…” (In-depth interview, non drug abuser worker, Riau
Islands).
“..Often see information from television, baliho, X banner in the
work place, and from seminars organized by PUSRI. The
seminars are lectures given by Gito Rollies an artist. We were
also invited at a parents meeting at school. Student association
axctivities (OSIS), also a regulation for a drug test when
entering the university…” (In-depth interview, non drug abuser
worker, South Sumatera).
“..I get drug information from the electronic media, besides
from television I also access information from youtube,
application and website. Very seldom from the radio, also from
stickers, banners, and the most routine from advertisements in
the street because I often travel out of town…” (In-depth
interview, non drug abuser worker, Aceh).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 70

 Other information from the printing and electronic media
generally relate to drug smuggle, raids and drug criminal incidents,
While seminars often give information on the types of drugs,
dangers of drug use and their effects.
“..Most information is related to arrests, and maybe also
effects of drug abuse, or lately about new drugs….” (In-depth
interview, non drug abuser worker, Riau Islands).
“..Info on the types of drugs and their effects. Also aabout the
dangers of drugs..” (In-depth interview, non drug abuser
worker, Riau).
“Resource persons want to know more about the types of
drugs, the side effects of drug abuse on the environment, and
the effects on the abuser.” (In-depth interview, non drug
abuser worker, South Sumatera).
The most accessed information on P4GN (Prevention of Drug
Abuse and Eradication of Illicit Drug Trafficking) by the respondents
are from banners, posters, leaflets and billboards. Both drug abusers
and non drug abusers reached the rate of 65%. More than half of
the total respondents state they know about P4GN by reading the
prevailing regulations, 42% from socialization/information, only 32%
from interactive dialogues. There is almost no difference in the
prevalence of receiving P4GN information from the various sources
between the group of drug abusers and non drug abuser
respondents.

Diagram 1.1. Respondents Receiving Information on P4GN

70,000 64,718% 65,182% 65,168%

60,000 55,302% 53,552% 53,604%

50,000 45,193%
42,174% 42,262%
40,000 35,382%
31,964% 32,064%
30,000

20,000

10,000

0
Drug Abuser Non Drug Abuser Total

Banner, Poster, Billboard, Leaflet

Information, Socialization
Reading the Prevailing Regulation, Instructions & Sanctions
Discussion/Interactive Dialogue

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 71

 The qualitative studi indicates that the majority of informants
state that the social media is the most effective in extending drug
information and education as most people already have gadgets.
Various information is extended through Twitter, Instagram,
Facebook and other apps. If information is given through television
broadcast, newspapers and radio, it may not reach the young
generation, as they hardly ever see television, listen to the radio or
even read newspapers.
If the government makes use of social media for information,
it would be most ideal if socialization and information is also directly
delivered to young people, workers and students. If the two
methods are performed together, the results will surely be effective.
“..The era of today is a modern era, everybody use gadgets. If
you want to extend drug information, do it through the social
media, maybe Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, all social media
share about the dangers and types of drugs, TV, radio,
newspapers, young people nowadays very seldom turn to these
media. So it is better through the social media, and if possible
directly, such as socialization and information.” (In-depth
interview, non drug abuser worker, Riau).
Another effective method is through a persuasive and direct
approach to the workers, so the information is received directly and
you can see their reaction. Information can also be done by method
of MLM (multi level marketing) or from person to person, from
afriend to another friend to spread the information faster.
“..Persuasive is actually a direct approach. As we cannot do it,
we use the MLM system (multi level marketing), like selling.
From a friend to another friend, please forward this... etc
should be like this…” (In-dept interview, non drug abuser
worker, Bangka Belitung).
“..Because by getting information they can discuss directly with
BNN and talk about the problem. There is a forum for questions
and answers…quite effective…” (In-depth interview, non drug
abuser worker, Lampung).
“.In Indonesia old and young, they all use social media…”
(Indepth interview, non drug abuser worker, North
Maluku).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 72

 The information in the internet is not clear so it needs further
clarification on the given information. So the company establishes
the Granat (anti narcotics) with the purpose to pass better
information on drugs directly to workers, through socialization,
seminars, and give the workers motivation not to fall into drug
abuse.
“Not yet, because we only read the material and easily forget
again since we have so many activities. So it is better to get it
face to face, that is effective.” (In-depth interview, non drug
abuser, Riau).
“Not enough, we still need further clarification. So PT Timah
establishes an internal called Granat to give motivation to the
workers. PT Timah gives quite lengthy information on the
effects of drug abuse. It means, with the approach, and
socialization to workers, also meetings all these build effective
motivation among workers.” (In-depth interview, non drug
abuser, Bangka Belitung).
Respondents’ involvement in P4GN activities is very minimum
in the past year, less than 40%. The most attended by respondents,
both drug abusers and non drug abusers are the information
sessions. The survey in 2017 shows that the rate of drug abusers
involved in many P4GN activities ismuch higher than non drug
abusers.

Diagram 1.2. Respondents’ Involvement in P4GN Activities in the Past Year

1,965
Others 2,026
4,063
5,643
Counseling 5,759
9,613
Involved in the Formulation of P4GN Regulation in 4,741
4,846
the Work Place 8,325
14,646
Drug Free Environment 14,734
17,641
4,861
Cadre Training for Anti-Drugs Work Unit 4,983
9,019
10,132
Film/Entertainment 10,283
15,263
5,442
Simulation 5,556
9,316
13,703
Interactive Dialogues/Information 13,856
18,930
38,253
Lecture/Counseling 38,375
42,418
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000

Drug Abuser Non Drug Abuser Total

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 73

 b. Company’s P4GN Program Policies
The need for P4GN activities in the work place arouses
different views from the policy makers. One of them is the Office of
Laour and Transmigration (Disnakertrans) in the many locations.
Many of these offices never knew or heard incidencts of drug
abuse among workers, and consider the need for P4GN in the
company not too urgent, since there are regulations and sanctions
in each company that can be applied if a worker is known to abuse
drugs. and there are more urgent issues to be handled in connection
with workers.
“..Not yet so urgent ….so if there is a worker involved, just
expel… no pardon… finished…” (In-depth interview,
Disnakertrans, North Kalimantan province).
“..We do not focus yet on activities against drug abuse…yessss.
just HIV/AIDS and general health…special program for drugs,
not yet…(In-depth interview, Disnakertrans, North Sulawesi
Province).
“..We only have socialization on HIV/AIDS. from the office of
Manpower very seldom, so we do not have data on drugs. We
hope there won’t be any problem with Manpower about
drugs…” (In-depth interview, Disnakertrans, Papua Province).
However. many feel efforts in drug prevention in the work
place is an urgent need that has to be done to protect and guard
workers and the company.
“..This is indeed necessary to have policies, all stakeholders
have to be involved to overcome this problem ….(In-depth interview,
Disnakertrans, Aceh Province).
“..Necessary to increase their respective religious awareness,
not necessary to use drugs to return to the Merciful God…” (In-
depth interview, Disnakaertrans, East Kalimantan Province).
Disnaker is aware that workers are at risk to abuse drugs. and
that makes this office to make an agreement with BNN to coordinate
with each other. The office sees that one method is to perform
socialization to the company management.
“..The first need is to contact the management. It has to apply
its regulation, its requirement….socialize their needs….that’s
their task…” (In-depth interview, Disnakertrans, West Papua
Province).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 74

 “..Yes. there is an MOU for cooperation with BNN Province.”
(In-depth interview, Disnakertrans, Riau Province).

Meanwhile, all company managers stated that drug

prevention in the work place very much needed to minimize
the possibility the workers turn to drugs. The work load
may cause workers suffer from stress that makes them take drugs
in order to be able to do all the work demanded from them. Drug
abuse causes a decrease in productivity and work ethics that
eventually inflicts loss to both the company as well as the drug
abuser.

“Oh yeah, a must Very imperative. Because at a certain point

drugs certainly reduce productivity.“ (In-depth interview,
Company Manager, Riau Islands),

“Drugs have also great potentials for workers. They have

an income. Stress and the work load make them turn to
drugs.“ (In-depth interview, Company Manager, South
Sulawwesi).

“Among the workers drugs…really ruin workers. I think it is

important yes…bcause…because..eehh.. really ruin the work
ethic of workers. Their economy….financial condition…is
ruined…and in turn causes financial loss to the company.” (In-
depth interview, Company Manager, Maluku).

Especially companies of the middle and higher levels have

applied drug prevention by implementing a general check up for
employees’ at least once a year. A company in Aceh conducts every
7 months a general staff meeting. At the meeting the company
conducts socialization on the dangers of drugs, the drug’s side
effects. and sanctions if an employee is detected of drug abuse.

“Every 7 months we have a GSM (General Staff Meeting), we

call the heads of divisions, and we socialize the dangers of
drugs, their side effects, including sanctions for those who are
known of drug abuse, so they feel rather uncomfortable and
immediately avoid drug use.” (In-depth interview, Company
Manager, Aceh).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 75

 It is most crucial to have a drug prevention program to keep
workers away from the trap of drug use. Some activities of the
prevention program are: build a special unit to handle the drug
problems, conduct socialization or seminars on the dangers of drugs.
Such activities are most effective in upgrading the workers’
knowledge. Several of the managers say that BNN, BNNP and the
Office of Manpower should proactively conduct socialization and
information on the dangers of drugs. So far many companies have
not yet done these activities.
“At PT Timah there is an organization or committee that
handles the drug problem. As I said yesterday, Granat, and anti
drug movement to minimize our employees/workers from
taking too much drugs. We have done socialization and
seminars to the work place in the regions, and these activities
are most effective…”(In-depth interview, Company Manager,
Bangka Belitung).
“Yeah, socialization is necessary, we cooperate with BNN,
with the local Police and social institutions, and the public, we
do it together.” (In-depth interview, Company Manager.
Jambi).
“Internal needs. we often tell, maybe we need information or
socialization from BNN, or the local administration. We seldom
get visits from outside in the hotel for socialization, etc.“
(Indepth interview, Company Manager, Papua).
Prevention efforts for workers should be implemented before
workers become drug abusers, even only as an experiment. Workers
should be told about the enormous effects of drug abuse and get
complete information on its consequences. It is important to give
stress the message to workers that if they face problems do not
avoid it. but immediately solve the problem.
If a person has become a drug abuser immediate help should
be given, do not avoid or let the person face the problem alone,
to become worse. Drug abusers are victims who are in need of
help to get free from addiction. The best way is to warn the person
of the loss inflicted by drug abuse. It is not easy to forbid someone
not to take drugs if the person is already using drugs. But as a friend
there is no reason not to continuously warn the concerned. On the
other hand, drug dealers and syndicates should be severely
punished.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 76

 “As a friend…….eehhh…it depends. Me, I always warn my
friends…” (In-depth interview, non drug abuser worker, West
NusaTenggara)
“As for me, first we should not oppose them, but see what role
he has. Whether he is a dealer or a drug user; for a dealer there
is no pardon, don’t give only 2 or 3 years for punishment, if
possible, find a severe punishment special for drug dealers.”
(In-depth interview, non drug abuser, North Maluku).
“A must….As BNN calls against the State. …yess…the State’s
enemy….if the income is not sufficient, they start to steal and
do other criminal actions…” (In-depth interview, Company
Manager, S.E. Sulawesi).
In the big companies that are already properly established,
with social and health facilities and good control, very seldom a
worker is found abusing drugs. However, managers consider drug
education important for their employees. Some of the companies
view drug prevention of a lesser priority as many more other needs
have to be fulfilled. Drugs are not their concern because there is no
connection with the company. This view is based on their experience
that so far the company has not yet found any indication of their
mployees taking drugs.
“..Maybe. as I already said before. in the east region drugs is
still a minor problem. That is one of the reasons the
management sees other matters more important..” (In-depth
interview, Company Manager, Papua).

Socialization of Law Number 35 of the Year 2009 on Narcotics

There is no information about the socialization on Law Number
35 of the Year 2009 to companies/the work place. But the interview
revealed that the related institutions like BNNP have made many
efforts by facilitating and motivating companies to organize drug
prevention in the work place. In general the activities are
socialization and information on the dangers of drugs for private
companies or the local administration, even for academics.
Socialization on drug prevention is conducted through social
media, newspapers, radio, leaflets. Also motivate the local
administration to draw regulations on drug prevention, and to
strengthen BNNK.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 77

 Socialization of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration
Regulation Number 11 of the Year 2005
Apparently the Minister’s regulation No.: PER.11/MEN/VI/
2005 on the Prevention of Drug Abuse and Eradication of Illicit
Trafficking in Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances and Other
Addictive Substances has only been applied by some companies.
The companies that have conducted socialization used the
classic method by inviting the company’s representatives. However,
the information given is about health issues that are common in the
work place.
“..The method of socialization is what I said before. The
regulation also requires the company to be responsible in
providing protection for employees. It is implemented by
conductingsocialization…” (In-depth interview, Disnakertrans,
of Riau Islands).
“..In this work place there are several policies, first from the
company, the second perhaps in the office there is a program
related to socialization….” (In-depth interview, Disnakertrans,
Aceh Province).
“..We have carried out the ministerial regulation No 11 of 2005
before. but it seems it is gone now. In 2010 and before yes…”
(In-depth interview, Disnakertrans, Lampung Province).
Meanwhile, other companies have not yet carried out socialization;
there are even companies that are not aware of the regulation. They
say that drug prevention among workers is BNN’s authority and
responsibility. Disnakertrans does not have a budget, and there are
many other issues related to workers/employees that have to be
settled and socialized by Disnakertrans.
“.. The minister’s regulation on drugs, we have not done
socialization…” (In-depth interview, Disnakertrans, West
Kalimantan Province)
“..No.. from BNN. From us, for the time being there is no
budget. Our budget is just for meals and drinks.” (In-depth
interview, Disnakertrans, North Sumatera Province).
“..There is so much control so what we handle is wages, social
services, and there are still many issues that we cannot cover
like drugs, and because that is BNN’s task…” (In-depth
interview, Disnakertrans, Bali Province).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 78

 Socialization in the company. the information does not differ
much with the former informant. Not all companies have
implemented the Minister’s regulation No. PER.11/MEN/VI/2005, as
was revealed in the interview with the company’s manager. In-
depth interviews indicate that most managers of the companies
have not socialized the Minister’s regulation. Informants even stated
that they are not cognizant of the regulation. But some managers
admit they have heard vaguely about the regulation but not in
detail.

“…About the details. I don’t know, but yes have heard about
it…” (In-depth interview, Company Manager, West
Kalimantan).

About their being incognizant, it is mainly because there was

never socialization by the office or related agency on the regulation.
Most managers of the companies have never heard of the term
P4GN. So they made an appeal to the related agencies to conduct
socialization on said regulation.

“…I have already worked here for 3 years, but no socialization

yet….” (In-depth interview, Company Manager, Bali).

“…About the details I don’t know; ever heard, yes. But about
the details. I don’t know…” (In-depth interview, Company
Manager, West Kalimantan).

10. Conclusion.

The following are the conclusions from this study:

a. The level of company participation in the survey tends to decline.

Some of the reasons forwarded by companies are, interference in
the productivity; needs permission from the central office outside
the province; only conducted by the central office, the regional
office does not meet the required number of workers, or no clear
reasons.

b. The number of companies in the 2017 covers all sectors (9 sectors),

which is the same with the survey in 2012. The largest number of
companies is in Transportation/Warehousing and Communication,
mostly owned by private companies.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 79

 c. Respondents’ charcteristics related to age, gender, education,
marital status. Type of domicile and living with whom are nearly the
same in all three surveys (2009, 2012 and 2017).

d. Prevalence of drug abuse in the previous surveys tend to decline

(2009, 2012).

e. Respondents’ knowledge on drugs and their dangerous effects are

quite sufficient, in all sectors of industry.

f. The majority of respondents do not agree with drugs for routine

consumption experimental use.

g. Television is the most effective for drug information. KIE

(Communication, Information and Education) is less communicative
because the message is brought like a sermon.

h. No special policy available in the company related to P4GN, the

policy is more or less related to order, discipline, and work
regulations.

i. No socialization of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration

Regulation No.11 of the year 2005 on the company’s duty to
organize P4GN within the company and in the related agencies.

j. The level of company and workers participation in the P4GN

activities is still relatively low, because the management considers
the drug problem is not theirs to handle, and the activities will
interfere with company’s performance.

k. The majority of workers (62%-85%) in the various sectors admit they

have received or read the related information on drug abuse.
However, it remains that very few of the workers/employees (26%-
46%) actively attend information or socialization sessions on drug
abuse in the work place.

l. Sanctions against drug abuse and handling of these prolems in the

workplace is variable: no sanctions, Warnings, dismissal, referral to
medical facilities/rehabilitation.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 80

II. Results of the Social-Economic Survey on Drug Abusers, 2017.
1. Introduction.
a. Background
The use of drugs is a complex social phenomenon that consists
of layers of facets and continuing public discourses in many parts of
the world, and today it is dominated by the public health discipline
and the law (Bourgois, 2002; Bright et, all. 2008; Lancaster et, all.
2015). The principal findings of the World Drug Situation in 2017
(World Drugs Report, UNODC), illustrate that approx, 5% of the
population between the age of 15 – 64 years, or a quarter (1/4)
billion (between 158 351 billion) abused drugs in 2015, with a
relatively prevalence of 5% in the last decade, 6% of that population
have ever been involved in drug abuse, or approx., 29.5 million have
met with problems, or suffered from disorders of drug abuse,
and eventually end in addiction, (UNODC. 2017). Many studies
with a critical viewpoint stated that drug abuse disorders should
be looked upon from the context of alertness towards the
contradictive approach (Adams, 2015; Alexander, 2012; Lacobucci &
Frieh, 2016).

Much has to be done to understand the huge effect of drugs,

particularly on health, development, peace and security in all regions
of the world (Fedotov in UNODC 2017). Apart from the variable
policies of States on the legality of drug use, drugs maintain the main
commodity of transnational organized crime in the world.
Developments in financial matters and advancement in mobile
communication offer new opportunities to drug dealers for faster
transactions and anonymous identity using bitcoins. Outcomes of a
research revealed that in certain periods transactons in drugs
escalate approx., 50%/year between September 2013 and January
2016 (UNODC, 2017). The buyers are typical recreational users
making transactions for marihuana/cannabis/ganja, cocaine,
ecstasy, hallucinogens and NPS. The spectrum of substances in the
market has become more extensive, opioids have become more
variable in combination with substances that are internationally
under the control of illegal traders, like heroine and prescription
drugs that are illegally produced or adulterated.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 81

 A study indicates that the volume of drug circulation in the
black market in the internet remains low, but its fast growth is a
significant challenge. The Global Survey on Drugs reported that
trafficking and access to drugs through the internet have occurred
several times in the past years. Although the source of data is not a
representative sample, but it was able to reveal the behavior of
approx., 100.000 internet users in more than 50 countries, that
illustrates the tendency of drug abusers to buy the drugs online, and
its easy access. Among the respondents under survey who have
consumed drugs in the past year, the proportion of drug from the
internet during the previous 12 months has escalated in the period
2014 – 2017 (UNODC, 2017).

In the same report it also stated that Opioids are the most
dangerous drugs that have contributed 70% of ill effects to health,
(UNODC 2017). Disorders from amphetamine abuse is also a
significant part to the load of global diseases. Meanwhile, the market
of NPS is yet little, but their users do not know the contents and
dose of psychoactive elements in some of the NPS that have the
potential to increase the risk to serious diseases (UNODC, 2017).
Just now the world is focussed on the threat of methamphetamines
and new NPS. These new substances continued to increase till 2015,
and was reported they almost reached twice the number (483)
compared to 2012, that contained 260 NPS. UNODC also stated that
the production of cocaine and opioids has increased, so these drugs
are still the object of serious attention.

Meanwhile. besides drugs can cause premature death, they

also have a high risk for diseases. According to UNODC Report of
2017, hepatitis C has caused a great loss to injecting drug abusers.
More than half of the total 12 million injecting drug users are
infected with hepatitis C, one from eight drug abusers (1.6 million)
live with HIV, while 1.3 million suffer from hepatitis C and HIV.
On the whole, 222,000 people died from hepatitis C, or three
times the number of drug abusers who died from HIV (60,000).
UNODC Report stressed that although there is progress in the
medication for hepatitis C, the access is still unfavourable for most
countries because medication for hepatitis C is very expensive
(UNODC, 2017).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 82

 Because of the bustling trade in illegal drugs, effects of drugs
increased. and was felt in the social, health and economic aspects.
Drug abuse has affected the social aspect immensely. It has pushed
criminal actions and increase social vulnerability. Drug abuse has
also inflicted economic loss, real and opportunity cost, As a drug
abuser their economic needs to pay for drugs that are highly priced
make them carry out criminal acts like stealing and robbing (Goode,
1999).
A study in Wales, England, made an estimation that the
economic loss of drug abuse is approx, 23 billion dollars, or an
average of 12 thousand dollars/person per year (Goode, 2000). A
research in the state of Washington, United States, made an
estimation that the economic loss caused by crimes related to
drinking and drug abuse is around 541 million dollars, an increase of
55% from 1990 (Wickizer, 1996). In 2000 Liu research in Texas State,
U.S., estimated that the economic loss of crimes related to alcohol
and drug abuse in the state of Texas in the same year reached 26
billion dollars; premature death 4.8 billion dollars. and lost
productivity approx. 11 million dollars. World Drugs Report of 2017
considers that drugs is related to other types of organized crime, i.e.
the flow of illegal finance, corruption and terrorism; that strengthens
the reason for further digging into other facts. It needs more
researches to find out.
In Indonesia, a study conducted by BNN-PPKUI in 2014
calculated the total number of drug abusers is 3.8- 4.1 million, or
2%-2.5% of the total population were at risk to drug abuse in 2014.
Compared to the study in 2011 the prevalence of drug abuse is
relatively stable (2.2%), but increased if seen from the study in 2008
(1.9%). The source of drug abusers with the largest contribution
comes from workers, as they have the financial ability to purchase
drugs, face immense work pressure and a potential for high stress,
(PPKUI-BNN, 2014). The cost of drug abuse among males is higher
than among females. If sorted out according to the types of costs,
the former study estimated Rp. 56.1 trillion for private loss Rp. 6.9
trillion for social cost. In the private cost the largest proportion is
spent on drug consumption (76%) (PPKUI-BNN. 2014). The largest
proportion of loss in the social cost is due to premature death (78%).
If seen from the demographic spread the largest portion of drug
abusers are adolescents and the younger people with education, the
nation’s invaluable asset; the actual cost is far more higner than
what is calculated in this study (PPKUI-BNN, 2014). The huge
economic and social loss from drug abuse justifies the reason for
urgent actions taken in the prevention and dealing with drugs
(PPKUI-BNN, 2014).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 83

 As is seen from the world drug trafficking and prevalence of
drug abuse and the drug condition in Indonesia which is quite
enormous, the National Narcotics Board in cooperation with the
Center of Health Research. University of Indonesia, made an update
of the study data on the economic and social cost of drug abuse in
Indonesia, for 2017. They hope that the research on the latest
potential cost or loss caused by drug abuse from the micro as well as
the macro aspect will be a useful input. Considering that
stakeholders and policy makers are aware of the importance of
evidence based planning in taking their decisions that have to be
based on accurate and reliable information, and use the latest
data in the evaluation and formulation of new policies against drug
abuse.
b. Purpose
The general purpose of this study is to know the estimate rate
of drug abuse and magnitude of the economic and social loss from
drug abuse in Indonesia in the year 2017. The special aim to be
reached is as follows:
1) Obtain an illustration on the pattern of use. drug trafficking,
and places of trafficking in the circles of drug abusers.
2) Obtain information from the Police on drug evidence covering
types of drugs, its price, and source of drugs.
3) Analyze the policies of drug prevention and countermeasures
against drugs abuse in Indonesia.
4) Obtain the proportion of consequence from drug abuse.
5) Obtain the average cost of drug abuse according to the type of
abuse.
6) Make an estimate of the economic and social cost, covering
the opportunity and real cost to be borne by the drug abuser,
the family and community from drug abuse.

2. Definition and Meaning.

a. Estimate and Projection of the Total Drug Abusers.
One of the important components to measure the social and
economic loss of drug users begins with the estimate of the total
drug abuse. From the estimate a strategy is developed on the policy
and program in the control of drugs from the aspect of prevention
and rehabilitation. Apart from that the rate of drug abuse is used in
designing the program needs, monitor and evaluate the successful
results of the program to eradicate and prevent drug trafficking. An
accurate prevalence rate shall result in the planning and evaluation
of the exact situation at the local and national levels.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 84

 It is quite difficult to measure the rate of drug abuse
because drug abusers are the hidden population. Prevalence
is the common method to measure the rate of drug abuse.
In measuring the prevalence there are some related
indicators involved, on health and social problems that can
be obtained from a survey. However, it is not possible to
take the prevalence of drug abuse from the survey on
households. because of their closed characteristic. So special efforts
are made to get the rate of drug abuse by using several methods of
estimation.

To measure the magnitude of the drug problem the

following is forwarded by UNODC, (2010) (i) Measure the magnitude
of drug abuse with the rate of prevalence (ever used, past year
use, past 30 days use) of the general population, and (ii)
Measure the potential of the drug problem from the drug use among
young people, and the cost of drug abuse and its consequence with
the rate/indicator for treatment (related to morbidity and
mortality).

b. Criteria of Drug Abuser: Experimental Use; Regular Use;

Addict.
There are many concepts and operational definitions of
drug abuse, some through the approach of the frequency of
drug use, or the level of addiction by measuring some
psychological or mental indicators. Ritter & Anthony (1991) define
experimental use (new initiation) if the frequency of drug use is 6
times or less in a year. Todorov et al. (2006) set 5 times or less for
experimental use, more than 5 times as more than experimental, and
reguar drug user if consumed every day with the minimum of 2
weeks. Meyer (1975) stated the use of a drug more than once a day
within a period of 10 to 14 days or more, belongs to the cathegory
of addiction. SAMSHA (2008) divides the behavior of drug use into
three groups: (1) lifetime use, the minimum use one time in a
lifetime, including in the past 30 days or 12 months; (2) past year
use, the last use in the past 12 months, including 30 days before the
interview, (3) past month use, in the past 30 days before the
interview.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 85

Table 2.1. Cutting Points and Criteria of the Level of Addicion from Several Sources
MODE-
EXPERIM- OCCASI- HEAVY HABITUAL.
CASUAL RATE REGULAR
ENTAL ONAL USERS CHRONIC
USE
1-2 times 3-9 times 1-20 times 10-29 Minimum 21-199 > 200 times
(Mizner, (Mizner) (Stanton) times 1 time in a times
1973) (Mizner) week (Stanton) (Stanton)
(Johnson)
1-2 times 3-59 times One >30 times 3 times a
(Josephson, (Josephson, month or (Mizner) week in 3
1973) 1973) more years or
(Johnson) more, or
every day
use for 2
years
(Hochman $
Brill, 1973)
1-9 times 10-59 times > 60 times
(Josephson, (Josephson, (Josephon)
1972) 1972)
< 1 tine in 1 10 times in 3 times a
month the past week or >
(Johnson) one year 1 month
(Hochman use
and Brill, (Robins)
1973)
min 1 kali/
bulan
(Johnson)
Source : Kandel, 1975

In broad outlines the cutting points and the criteria of

addiction starts from the non abuser up to the experimental user,
moderate user, heavy user. Elinson (1974) reviewed several
researches that Kandel investigated (1975), that gave some
definitions and criteria used to illustrate a more detailed pattern of
drug abuse or the level of addiction (Table 2.1). Others developed a
combination of the above measurement through the DSM-IVTR
criteria in order to know the level of dependence (Todorov et al.,
2006), and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(SHAMSHA, 2008).
This study focuses to get a more detailed picture on the past
year drug use, that is classified according to the frequency of drug
use and method of use. There are 4 cathegories of past year drug
users, i.e. experimental users, those who consume a drug less than
5 times in the past year from the time of the survey. Regular user,
who consumes 5 – 49 times in the past year from the time of the
survey. Non injecting drug user who consumes more than 49 times
in the past year from the time of the survey. Lastly, injecting drug
user who injects the drug in whatever dose in the past year from the
time of the survey.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 86

 c. Definiton and Components of Social-Economic Cost of Drug
Abuse
According to Collins &Lapsley (1991 & 1996)11 the definition of
cost of drug abuse is the net value of resources in a certain year that
is not available for the public for drug abuse behavior, or for the
purpose of investment, as an effect of drug abuse in the past and
today, and the invisible cost from drug abuse.
Calculating the social-economic loss from drug abuse is
necessary as the base in counting the estimate of the government’s
expenditure in handling drug abuse (proactive and reactive cost).
Proactive cost is defined as the written cost in reducing the number
of drug abusers or addicts. Reactive cost is defined as the cost
related to the consequence of drug abuse. The urgency to calculate
the loss from drug abuse (Single, 2001)12 is as follows:
1) Calculation of the economic loss is frequently used for the
proposal of policies related to alcohol, cigarettes (smoking)
and other illegal drugs as a priority in the agenda of public
policy.
2) Calculating the social-economic loss helps to achieve the
target of specific problems and the right policy. It is most
important to know the drug with the highest loss value. For
example, a study by Collins & Lapsley (1991) concluded that
the cost of alcohol and cigarettes has surpassed the social cost
of the use of illegal drugs in Australia.
3) A study in the calculation of economic loss helps to identify the
gap, meed for research and expected corrections for the
national system of statistic reporting.
No standardized components are present in relation with the
economic social cost of drugs in the studies from various countries.
Availability of data is the important key word in determining the cost
components. Developed countries rely more on routine data as the
source of data received from reports submitted by related ministries
or institutions. The study perpectives have also great influence in
determining the cost components. Perspectives of the study consist
of client’s perspective (drug user), or social perspective (public). This
study uses the perspective of the drug user.

11
Collins DJ, Lapsley HM. 2002. Counting the cost: estimates of the social costs of drug abuse in Australia in 1998-
9. Monograph Series No 49. Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Canberra.
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/?fuseaction=public.AttachmentDownload&nNodeID=1984
12
Single et al. 2001. International Guidelines for Estimating the Costs of Substance
Abuse.http://www.pierrekopp.com/downloads/International%20guidelines%202001%20edition-4.pdf

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 87

 Single et al (2001)13 explained that the social economic cost of
drug abuse consists of 4 major parts, namely cost for health services
(drug addiction, diseases & trauma related to drugs); productivity
cost (premature death, cost of death-jobless, and productivity), cost
of punishment and judicial matters (criminal cost, lost of time for
criminal actions, cost for imprisonment); property loss from
accidents or criminal acts.

According to Pacula et.al. (2009),14 there are two approaches

in the search for economic and social cost through the usage of
and/or policies. The cost of usage consists of 3 components: 1)
health (health services, overdose, death, HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis B & C,
invisible addiction); 2) productivity cost (related to premature death
and short time inability); 3) crime cost ( drugs as the trigger of crime).
From the part of policies: 1) crime cost (cost of court matters and
arrest); and other direct costs (prevention policies, reduction of ill
effects of drugs). Table 2.2 pressents the details of cost components
in various studies.

Markandya and Pearce (1989) define the total cost of drug

abuse as private cost, added with social cost. Private cost is related
to the consumption and production of drugs, while other cost
related to drugs is not charged to the drug abusers but to the
community as social cost, Schauffer (2001). Collins & Lapsley (2004)
acknowledge the views of the economists that distinguish the cost
of drugs. The study on drugs include the three main costs, costs of
health services, productivity cost and cost related to law and court
matters (Single et.al., 2001). Some developed countries make an
estimate of the cost of drug abuse by referring to ”The International
Guidelines” ( Single et.al, 2001). However, it is very hard to apply
this methodology in the developing countries due to the limited
availability of data infrastructure, for example, on incidence rate,
and drug prevalence, mortality, criminality, health etc. (Single et. al,
2001).

13Single et al. 2001.International Guidelines for Estimating the Costs of Substance

Abuse.http://www.pierrekopp.com/downloads/International%20guidelines%202001%20edition-4.pdf
14
Pacula, R.L., Hoorens, S., Kilmer, B., Reuter, P.H., Burgdorf, J.R., Hunt, P. 2009. Issues in estimating the economic cost of drug
abuse in consuming nations. Report 3. RAND Corporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR709.html

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 88

Table 2.2. Location, Author, Method, and Components of the Study on Economic and
Social Loss of Drug Abuse
UNITED ENGLAND
STATE CANADA AUSTRALIA FRANCE SPAIN
STATES & WALES
Author National Drug Rehm et al. Collins & Kopp & Gordon et al. Garcia-Altes
Control Policy, 2006 16 Lapsley. Blanchard 18 2006 19 et al. 2002
2004 15 2004 17
Method Cost of Illness Cost of Demogra- Cost of Human Prevalence
(Human illness phic Illness. capital
Capital Human Human
approach) Capital capital
Cost Direct cost: 1) Direct Visible cost: 1) Health 1) Criminal 1) Health
components 1) Health treatment 1) Labour at services cost ctions indicators
services: a) cost the 2) Other cost related to (treatment,
Provided by (morbidity, workplace than health drug overdose,
federal; b) hospital, 2) Labour in services abuse(fraud, HIV,
Medical mental the house- 3) theft, intentional
consequence hospital, hold Government robbery, accident,
2) Other costs: doctor’s 3) Health expenditures caught for unintentio-
a) Judicial visit, services 4) Income drugs) nal accident)
system and prescription 4) Traffic and 2) Medical 2) Indikator
public cost; for drugs) accident productivity cost kejahatan
b) Private cost 2) Direct cost loss (hospitalizati (judicial cost
for legal Invisible 5) Other on (hospital and repairs
Indirect cost: actioncs cost: costs related & mental cost related
1) Estimate of (Police, 1) Loss of life to drug hospital), to drug
productivity Court, 2) Disabled abuse(crimin doctor’s crimes, and
loss; 2) Illness Appeal) from traffic ality and visit, effect social
as a conse- 3) Direct cost accident accidents)) of drugs on prosperity)
quence of for preven- neonatal, 3) Producti-
drugs; 3) tion and infectious vity loss
Hospital research disease) (premature
treatment; 4) (study/ 3) Death death, lost
Productivity research, caused by time
loss as a victim prevention drugs because of
of crime; 5) program, 4) Social drugs,
Imprisonment; wages & treatment research &
6) Criminal operational prevention
history funds) cost)
4) Other
direct costs
(fire, traffic
accident,
loss at the
work placw,
administra-
tion cost &
pembayaran
transfer)

15Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2004. The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992-
2002. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President (Publication No. 207303).
http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/economic_costs.pdf
16Rehm, J., Baliunas, D., Brochu, S., Fischer, B., Gnam, W., Patra, J., Popova, S., Sarnocinska-Hart, A., Taylor, B.

2006.The Cost of Substance Abuse in Canada 2002.http://www.ccsa.ca/2006%20CCSA%20Documents/ccsa-

011332-2006.pdf
17Collins, D.J. & Lapsley, H.M. 2004. The costs of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug abuse to Australian society in

2004/2005.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D4
2B/$File/mono64.pdf
18Kopp, P. & Blanchard, N. 1997. Social costs of drug use in

France.http://www.pierrekopp.com/downloads/Social%20Cost%20in%20France%20_v6_.pdf
19Gordon, L., Tinsley, L., Godfrey, C., Parott, S. 2006. The economic and social costs of Class A drug use in England

and Wales 2003/2004. Home Office Online Report 16/06

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 89

 3. Method.
a. Survey Design.
Estimate of economic and social loss is calculated by applying
the approach of unit cost per consequence of drug abuse multiplied
by estimate of the total drug abusers (Godfrey et.el., 2002). The
same method is also applied in similar surveys of 2004. 2008 and
2011. The client’s or drug abuser’s perpective is used because of the
government’s limited collected data on drug abuse for the routine
report (Godfrey et.al. 2002). This matter was also pointed out by
Single et.al (2001), that it is very difficult for developing countries to
collect data as is done in developed countries because of their
limited availability of data infrastructure. For example, there is no
incidence and prevalence rate of drugs, no data on mortality and
morbidity, criminality, health, etc. To resolve the limitations of data,
the method applied is to conduct a survey on drug abusers in 13
provinces, to get the unit cost and proportion of incidence rate of
each drug abuse consequence. Then, make an estimate and
projection of the total number of drug abusers by making use of the
survey outcomes on high school/university students, formal workers
and households of 2005 and 2012. Here under is a more detailed
description.
First, get the estimate of unit cost and incidence proportion of
each consequence of drug abuse. This was achieved through a
survey among drug abusers in 13 provinces: North Sumatera, Riau
Islands, Lampung, DKI Jakarta, West Java, DI Yogyakarta, Central
Java, East Java, Bali, West Nusa Tenggara, South Kalimantan, South
Sulawesi, and Papua. Location of the survey is the capital of each
province. Selection of the provinces is based on the total arrests of
drug cases and geographical considerations.
Since the respondent population of the survey are drug
abusers with their closed and hidden characteristics, the survey
method applied is a modification of RDS (Respondent Driven
Sampling). The initial step is to divide a study reagion into 5 parts,
for example, east, west, north, south, and central. In each part 3
types of respondents are selected, namely, student, worker and
unemployed. The three cathegories of selected respondents
become the gate in finding other respondents. Selection of
candidate respondents are nominated by the initial selected
respondents, a maximum of two persons outside their hangout
friends. This process is repeated until the minimum samples is
obtained in each gate (9 – 10 respondents). In each study location
the minimum number of respondents should be 125 persons, to get
a total of 1,702 respondents.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 90

 Besides the RDS approach, a purposive selection was also
conducted to get an illustration of respondents in the group of
experimental20 drug use (less than 5 times drug consumption in their
lifetime), also from the drug-related sick people. Each study location
has 15 experimental user respondents, and a total of 340
respondents. The tracing of respondents are conducted by key
informants in the field, like students, workers, NGO partners, etc. 10
sick respondents are selected for each study location totaling 130
respondents for the study. This selection was done through the
purposive approach from hospitals/clinics or NGOs working with
HIV/AIDS patients. Selection of sick respondents was made among
those with HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis (TBC), Hepatitis, etc.
Second, the total number of drug abusers was obtained by
applying direct estimation from the population in the age group of
10-58 years as targets of the survey, multiplied by the prevalence
rate of drug abuse among high school/university students, the
targets of the survey (2006, 2009, 2011 and 2016), formal workers
(2009, 2012 and 2017), and households (2005, 2010).
Third, to get an in-depth and comprehensive picture of the
drug problem in the field, an in-depth interview was conducted for
related parties, drug abusers, the family, Police members, BNNP,
residents of rehabilitation centers, and ex-drug abuse.

b. Number of Samples and their Selection

The calculated cost component is divided into 2 parts, i.e.
direct cost related to drug abuser, and indirect cost related to drug
abuse. Details are presented in the next Table:
Table 2.3.Calculation of Cost Components in the Study
DIRECT COST INDIRECT COST
Type of drugs consumed Criminality
Medication and treatment for overdose Time lost due to overdose
Medication for a disease (HIV/AIDS, TBC, Hepatitis, Time lost because of illness
etc)
Rehabilitation and detoxification Time lost for detox & rehab
Traffic accident Time lost because of an accident
Encounter with law enforcement Time lostbecauseof an encounter with law
enforcement
Imprisonment Time lost because of imprisonment
Lime lost because of activity interference
Drug-related death

20
From the results of the RDS method nomination will not be obtained recreational user respondents
Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 91
 Estimate of total drug abusers is calculated from the total
population between 10-59 years multiplied by the prevalence of
drug abuse from each survey target. Drug abuse prevalence is
calculated from current users. Past year drug users (current users)
are grouped in 4 cathegories: experimental use, regular use, non-
injecting drug users and injecting drug users. The formula of
calculation is as follows:
Et = ∑ (pi * P * wi )t
Et = t years Estimate of total drug abusers
pi = t years prevalence of drug abusers of i population
P = t years total populationJ (10-59 years)
wi = Proportion of i population against the whole population
Note: Population between 10-59 years; I = student; worker and
household
Steps to be taken:
First, decomposition of Indonesia population in 2017 – 2022
according to survey target. The estimation of the total Indonesian
population in 2017 between 10 to 59 years is 190.6 million, and
increased to 200.2 million in 2011 (BPS, 2013). That total is approx.
73% of the total Indonesian population. The total is then
decomposed into groups according to the survey targets (school
students/university students, formal workers; and the rest of the
population households), gender (male; female) and provinces (34).

The source of data in the decomposition of population is taken

from many data sources. Reference for the source of data in the
decomposition of population according to the survey, province and
gender is from Ministry of National Education, data of workers and
population from National Statistics Agency (BPS).
Second, estimate and decompose drug abusers from the
surveys based on the period of drug use and level of addiction. After
the above format of decomposition is established, the next step is to
fill the cells in each format with the prevalence rate of the surveys
based on gender, and province. Three (3) surveys are used, survey
on school/university students, survey on workers, and survey on
households. The number of ever used in the past year is taken from
each survey that is presented in the following graph.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 92

Diagram 2.1. Prevalence of Past Year Use from the Three Surveys on Drugs,
2005-2017

Rumah Tangga Pekerja Pelajar

6.000
5.326 5.193

5.000 4.723 4.663

4.000

2.936 2.900
3.000

1.907
2.000

1.000 .767 .622 .622

.000
2005 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 2016 2017

Study the findings in all surveys and see its tendency, and
select one rate as reference to be used as the basic data of the
estimate, namely of 2017. The expert judgement is determined as
the reference rate for 2017, by taking note of the decreasing
tendency of prevalence in all surveys. The researcher decided to use
the expert judgement because the method of statistics, for example,
regression, will show a much lower decrease. While the facts in the
field prove that drug trafficking and arrests of drug cases are still
rampant. The experts agreed to use as the basic data for the surveys
in 2017 the following: survey on households (0.60%); survey on
school/university students (2.1%); and survey on workers (3.5%).
Furthermore, multiply each prevalence rate with the weight at point
1, and the result will be the national prevalence rate of drugs in
Indonesia in 2017.
Furthermore, the prevalence of past year use is divided into
the cathegory of experimental use, regular use, injecting drug user
and non-injecting drug user based on gender and province in each
survey group. An verage is taken from the results of all surveys and
reviewed by experts. The prevalence rate of drug abuser shall be
decomposed by finding the proportion of each cathegory and survey
group with a standard of 100%. After the proportion is obtained in
each cathegory then multiplied with the estimate number of drug
abusers of past year use. The same pattern is also used to get the
total of each drug types.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 93

 Third, multiply the total population and prevalence, and
decompose the number of drug abusers from the outcome of the
surveys according to gender, province, level of addiction, and types
of drugs. After all data are ready in each cell of the format in
Microsoft Excel, the next step is to multiply the prevalence with the
weight and total population. The first phase is to find the national
number of drug abusers based on gender, total drug abusers based
on the level of addiction, total drug abusers based on type of drugs
used. Then, decompose according to province. Provinces that have
no survey on households, an estimate is made by taking reference
to the survey’s prevalence of school/university students and/or
workers as their data are available in all provinces of Indonesia.
After finding the estimate prevalence of drug abusers in 2017,
the estimate is projected till 2022. There are 3 scenarios of
projection, i.e. increase, stable, and decrease. In making a projection
the following method is applied:
1) The prevalence of drugs agreed upon by experts for 2017 shall
be used as reference year for the calculation of the projection.
2) Based on the prevalence of the survey since 2005, the
prevalence among school/university students shows a
tendency of a decrease, while in households the tendency is
stable. The pattern is used for the base of the projection. For
the assumption of decrease. BNN’s target rate of 0.02%/year
is used. so in 5 years there will be a decrease of 0.1%
3) The rate of 0.1% is then added to the agreed prevalence by
experts for 2017 for each of the survey groups, and its result is
the rate for 2022. The value between 2017 and 022 is
determined by using logistic regression rate in the Microsoft
Excel program. The equation of regression for households is y
= -20.21ln(x) + 154.38; for workers y = -40.42ln(x) + 311.05; for
school/university students y = 40.42ln(x) + 309.65.
4) After having obtained the prevalence for each year by using
the regression equation at point 3, the following step is to
multiply the weight of each survey group and the population
between 10-59 years in the same year.
5) The next process is to decompose with the same method as
explained at the estimation before, by distribution according
to gender, level of addiction, types of drugs and province in the
survey groups.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 94

 c. Calculation of Social Economic Cost.
1) Economic Cost Unit.
The estimate loss of economic cost is obtained by
multiplying the estimate of the total drug abusers (above
procedure) multiplied with unit cost per consequence of drug
abuse. The proportion of incidence from each consequence
and the unit cost is obtained from the survey on drug abuse in
17 provinces.
First, the calculation method for each economic and
social cost component. The cost of drug consumption is the
average value of the total drug consumption per person for
one year, then cashed by referring the market price of each
type of drug. Consumption costs of each type of drug is
calculated in detail according to the types of drugs like:
narihuana/cannabis/ganja, shabu, ecstasy, etc. Method of
calculation is making an average of drug consumption per
personper year multiplied with the market price of each type
of drug.
Cost of medication, rehabilitation and detoxification is
the cost spent for services and treatment of detoxification and
rehabilitation for one year. It is given on the respondent’s
acknowledgement for the cost spent on activites in the past
year.
Medication and treatment cost is the cost spent by the
respondent for outpatient care and hospitalization for the
treatment related to drugs in the past year. On the
acknowledgement of the respondent this cost is given for the
treatment and medication of diseases. If the respondent does
not know the amount it will be substituted with an average
cost from the study among the sick people as a consequence
of drugs.
Cost for an overdose is the cost spent on the occurrence
of an overdose from excessive drugs. Calculation of the cost is
based on the acknowledgement of the respondent for an
overdose from the time of temporary handling, treatment cost
at the hospital/clinic, transportation, etc., in the past year.
Criminality cost is the cost from a criminal act by the
respondent. This cost include the loss of money from stealing,
pickpocketing, or for the goods of the family or other people
sold by the respondent. Criminality cost is calculated on the
acknowledgement of the respondent for the selling of goods,
or their value at the time of stealing the money.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 95

 Imprisonment cost is the cost spent by the respondent
the cost for arrest, or the cost spent by the family during the
respondent’s time in jail. It includes court sessions, or
respondent’s time during imprisonment. The cost is calculated
on acknowledgement of the respondent for the past year.
Cost of productivity loss (overdose, illness,
Imprisonment, etc.). It is the cost spent for the lost time of a
person during the waiting or accompanying the respondent
during treatment, including the cost for meals and
transportation. It is calculated from the lost days multiplied
with the Minimum Regional Wage (UMR) added with the cost
for meals and transportation.
Cost of premature death is the estimate cost lost from
premature death, It is calculated by finding the ratio of the
mortality rate from drugs among the friends of the drug abuser
(based on the respondent’s acknowledgement). The ratio is
multiplied with the estimate number of injecting drug users for
the estimated mortality rate from drugs. Then, the estimate
age of the deceased friend of the respondent distributed by
age group (per 5 years till the maximum of 55 years, the age
of receiving a pension). The remaining age is calculated by the
pension age (56 years) minus the age at the time of death
multiplied with the regional minimum wage.
Second, the total drug abusers multiplied with the unit
cost and prevalence rate of each consequence. Aftergetting the
unit cost of the survey, this is multiplied with the prevalence
rate of each consequence with the total number of drug
abusers.
2) Estimate and Projection of Drug Abusers.
The international terminology related to the cathegory
of drug abuse is ever used and current users. Ever used is the
group that have ever used drugs with a minimum of one time
in a lifetime, while past year use are drug abusers who have
used drugs in the past 12 months from the survey. The
calculation of the total drug abusers does not include the
group of ever used. The calculation of estimate total of drug
abusers is obtained by using the prevalence rate according to
the group of survey targets in 2017 multiplied with the weight
and total population. The prevalence rate is determined by
the result of the panel of experts with the findings of the
survey for each target group from 2005 to 2017. Here under
are the results:

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 96

 The estimate of the total number of drug abusers
is between 3.0 million to 3.7 million in the past
year, (current users) in the age group of 10-59
years in Indonesia in the year 2017. In other
words, 1 out of 51 to 63 persons used drugs in 2017.
More than half of the total drug abusers are found
among workers (59%), followed by school/university
students and households. Details are presented in the
following Table.

Table 2.4. Estimate Total Drug Abusers in Indonesia In the Past Year, 2017

GTOUP UNDER SURVEY

NO. SCENARIO
HOUSEHOLD WORKERS STUDENTS TOTAL
1. Increase 630,909 2,202,012 880,805 3,713,726
2. Stable 573,554 2,001,829 800,732 3,376,115
3. Decrease 516,198 1,801,646 720,659 3,038,503

d. Data Analysis.
Epi Info Software issued by CDC-WHO is used for data enter
from the survey results, while data processing uses SPSS ver 13 and
Microsoft Excel software. While processing and analyzing of data
from the qualitative study uses in-Vivo version7.0.
3 main variables, i.e. age group, gender and classification of
drug abusers (experimental use, regular use, injecting drug user and
non-injecting drug user) are the basis for the analysis of this study.
Data from the survey outcomes are analyzed by distributing the
frequency to check data consistency. The 3 main variables are cross
tabulated to find the unit cost and percentage of the problem in each
consequence.

4. Characteristics of a Drug Abuser

Eligible past year drug abusers become the sample of this study, the
majority are males (88%). Male respondents are the largest in number in
each group. Males are mostly found in the group of injecting drug abusers
(93%), compared with the group of regular users and non-injecting drug
users. More than half of respondents have a high education background
or have passed Senior High School/same degree. Of course, this is a
condition for the State’s indirect loss because the potentials of young
people with higher education are ruined by drugs.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 97

 Even approx. 6% of female respondents (n=208) admit being
pregnant when interviewed. Imagine the health risk faced by the would-
be baby if the mother is a drug abuser. More than half of respondents
admit they are not married, but unfortunately, 1/3 of respondents are
married. The married respondents have a high risk and lack to fullfill their
household economic needs, and have great potential for conflicts, and
domestic violence. More than one-third of respondents (42%) admit to
bear the living costs of others besides themselves. So their economic
responsibility becomes greater, in race with the respondent’s needs for
drugs.

Table 2.5. Characteristics of Past Year Drug Abusers

PAST YEAR DRUG ABUSERS

NON
INJECTING
GENDER/EDUCATION/ INJECTING
NO. REGULAR DRUG TOTAL
STATUS DRUG
ADDICT
ADDICT
N % N % N % N %
1. Gender
Males 167 77.3 897 87.8 430 92.7 1494 87.8
Females 49 22.7 125 12.2 34 7.3 208 12.2
2. Education
No Schooling 1 0.5 7 0.7 2 0.4 10 0.6
Not finished Elementary 6 2.8 36 3.5 13 2.8 55 3.2
Elementary/Same Degree 8 3.7 79 7.7 12 2.6 99 5.8
Junior High School/Same
46 21.5 256 25.0 81 17.5 383 22.5
Degree
Senior High School/Same
131 61.2 550 53.7 285 61.4 966 56.8
Degree
Academy/University 21 9.8 96 9.4 71 15.3 188 11.0
3. Status
Single 137 63.4 645 63.0 180 38.7 962 56.5
Married 61 28.2 278 27.2 216 46.5 555 32.6
Divorced 2 0.9 6 0.6 14 3.0 22 1.3
Widow/Widower 13 6.0 75 7.3 48 10.3 136 8.0
Living Together Without
2 0.9 16 1.6 6 1.3 24 1.4
Marriage

The total of male drug abusers is 2.6 times greater than females.
The highest ratio of males occur in the group of households (1:9), the
lowest in the group of workers (1:1.7).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 98

 Approx. half the number of respondents live with their parents. Only
1 out of 10 respondents live alone. Most of the respondents are private
employees and merchants/entrepreneurs. While the proportion of
respondents who admit being a student is 10%, particularly in the group
of non-injecting addicts. This number is higher than those who admit are
unemployed. or not working (18%). The proportion of those who admit
are unemployed is smaller than the group of regular drug abusers. Serious
attention should be paid to those who work in the sector of public service
as it may endanger other people. Approx. 4% of respondents admit
working as taxi driver or online transportation. Besides getting a fixed
income half the number of respondents (51%) have additional income
from two main sources. One-third of the respondents admit getting from
their work (35%), mainly among the addicts. And another one-third getting
from their parents (34%), particularly among the regular drug users.
Less than one-third of respondents have savings (30%), and 29%
have some debt to another party. They belong to the group of injecting
drug addicts (37%). Only 1 out of 20 own a credit card. From this group 1
out of 8 have not yet paid their debt in the past 2 months, in particular the
group of injecting drug addicts.

5. Estimate and Projection of the Total Number of Drug Abusers.

a. Classification of Drug Abusers

The definition that Diagram 2.2. Estimate Number of Drug

Abusers Based on Level of
determines a person to Addiction, 2017
be classified as an
experimental drug user,
regular user,
recreational or heavy
addict has not been
agreed upon by experts
(see bibliography
review), because the
cathegory of drug abuse
has a continuum quality.
Some apply the medical approach, others psychological. frequency
of use, or its combination. In this study we classify drug abusers in 4
cathegories, i.e. experimental, regular, injecting drug use, and
non-injecting drug use. This classification is based on the frequency
of drug use in the past year and the method of drug use (nly
injecting).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 99

 The majority of respondents belong to the group of
experimental users (1.8 milliom). Most of them are workers. This is
triggered by the heavy work to be done by workers, social
economic condition and environmental pressure of friends.
The majority of respondents are still in the experimental or
regular stage, particularly for drugs that give effect to physical
endurance (shabu, zenith/carnopen). They use the drug because
they have to face high work pressure, or they need the drug for
immediate strong physical endurance or extra stamina. One of the
reasons respondents said in an in-depth interview they use shabu
for doping to be strong (not become easily tired). Unfortunately,
these workers do not understand that shabu is a drug. They even
believe that shabu does not cause addiction as they can control its
use. This misconception about shabu widely circulates among the
workers.

Injecting drug abusers tend to decrease from 2008 till the

present. As is seen in the statistics in 2008 there are 263 thousand,
in 2011, 70 thousand, decreased again to 67 thousand (2014), and in
2017 decreased to 58 thousand. From observation in the field new
injecting drug abusers are emerging today. They do not inject
heroin/putaw, but other types of drugs such as shabu, subuxon, etc.
because the price of heroin or putaw has become very expensive.
and hard to find in the drug market. If injecting drug use is not
stopped. injecting drug abusers will certainly increase, and HIV/AIDS
cases escalate (Details of addiction rate per province is shown in the
attchment).

b. Estimate Number of Drug Abusers by Province.

After getting the estimate number of drug abusers at national
level, the next step is to divide the prevalence by province, and
projected till 2020. The selection of prevalence rate in each province
refers to the prevalence rate in all provinces of the three surveys,
namely school/university students, workers and households. For
provinces without a survey the estimate is determined by the
survey on students, and its corrected prevalence, as the survey on
students has the most complete data until now, except for North
Kalimantan a new province as an administrative spread from East
Kalimantan.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 100
 If the number of drug abusers is broken down by province. the
five provinces with the largest prevalence are the provinces in Java,
and North Sumatera, and the the provinces with the largest
concentration of drug abusers in West and East Java. Actually the
prevalence is lower than the other provinces, but since the
population in these two provinces are much larger than the other
provinces. the absolute calculation becomes greater.
East Nusa Tenggara and North Kalimantan have the lowest
prevalence rate, while the province with the highest rate is DKI
Jakarta, and remains the highest from year to year.

Diagram 2.3. Estimate of Absolute Rate and Prevalence Rate of Drug Abusers By
Province. 2017

004 700,000

003 600,000

Jumlah Penyalahguna
Angka Prevalensi (%)

003 500,000

002 400,000

002 300,000

001 200,000

001 100,000

- -

Absolut Prevalensi

c. Estimate of the Type of Drugs in Circulation

To calculate the total types of drugs the basic data from the
surveys in each group is used, namely, high school/university
students, workers, and households. The method of calculation is
getting an average of the percentage of each type of drug use by
gender from each survey. Then the rate is reviewed and adjusted
with the population in each province for the purpose of inter-
province standardization. The result of the standardization is used
for decomposition of the national rate.
The most drugs consumed by drug abusers are cannabis/
ganja, shabu and ecstasy. These three drugs still dominate the drug
market. Another interesting thing is the case of controlled
prescription drugs (tramadol, trihex, koplo pil, xanax, etc). These
drugs are also much consumed by drug abusers. Over-the counter
drugs (analgesics) are also popular and consumed excessively to get
the “effect”.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 101
 In each group of the survey besides cannabis/ganja and shabu,
there is some difference in the pattern of drug consumption. High
school/university students tend to experiment with drug use,
because of their limited finance. After shabu the koplo pill is also
much consumed. While among workers, since most of them take
drugs with the purpose to prolong their stamina, the most consumed
drugs are shabu and ecstasy. In the group of households, there is a
combination in the pattern of drug abuse between the drug abuse
pattern of students and workers.

Table 2.6. Estimation of 15 Largest Number of Drug Abusers Based on Type of Drug,
2017-2022

NO. TYPE OF DRUG 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

1. Cannabis/ganja 1,594,150 1,583,873 1,585,425 1,586,797 1,587,478 1,600,443
2. Shabu 835,037 830,736 832,219 833,621 834,673 841,721
3. Excessive analgesics 616,507 613,695 615,234 616,720 617,957 623,701
4. Dextro/dextro-methorpan 612,826 610,497 612,175 613,806 615,190 620,721
5. Ecstasy 512,817 509,980 510,771 511,510 512,032 516,317
6. Tramadol 504,416 502,240 503,447 504,611 505,570 510,032
7. Glue Inhaling 452,095 449,254 449,973 450,646 451,129 455,310
8. Koplo Pill/BK 420,651 418,458 419,301 420,104 420,733 424,510
9. Codeine 334,228 332,956 333,917 334,851 335,653 338,765
10. Trihexyphenidyl/trihex 311,004 309,176 309,639 310,070 310,369 313,046
11. Kecubung (datura) 306,762 305,134 305,731 306,299 306,739 309,488
12. Analgesic mixed with soda 288,417 287,228 287,989 288,726 289,348 291,988
13. Amphetamines 273,929 272,935 273,742 274,528 275,205 277,745
14. Heroin/putaw 271,955 270,288 270,645 270,972 271,184 273,495
15. Magic mushroom 270,122 268,930 269,612 270,271 270,821 273,312
16. Xanax/Camlet 269,468 268,211 268,862 269,491 270,009 272,505
17. Nipam 264,299 262,926 263,454 263,957 264,350 266,714

6. Drug Abuse Behaviour.

a. History of Drug Abuse
- Ever Used Type of Drug
Almost all respondents admit having ever consumed
more than one drug (polydrug use). Approx, 65% male and 51%
female respondents have practised in taking more than one
drug. The most drugs consumed are cannabis/Cannabis/Ganja
and shabu with the same proportion, followed by ecstasy,
tramadol, trihex/thp, heroin, Subutex, methadone, etc. Most
interesting is the emergence of new drugs that are frequently
mentioned, like gorilla tobacco, kratom, zenith, etc.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 102
 b. First Drug Used
Almost half of respondents (47%) admit Cannabis/Ganja
was their first drug of abuse. Other drugs as the first time use vary
in proportion, which is less than 9%; Koplo pill/Bk (7.9%), Shabu/SS
(7.8%); Trihexyphenidyl/yellow pill (6.6%); Ecstasy (5.4%);
Tramadol (4.9%); etc. However, it is most unfortunate that some
drug abusers take a type of Subutex, buprenorphine and methadone
as their first time drug of abuse. These drugs are part of the harm
reduction program against the transmission of HIV/AIDS among
injecting drug abusers, which is strictly controlled by the
government. Another matter for serious attention is the fact that
many consume over-the-counter drugs. As an additional note, each
province has a different pattern of first time drug use. For example,
in province A the drug much abused may not be the same as in
province B, and vice versa. This indicates that some of the drugs are
popular as the first drug of abuse. BNNP needs to be able to identify
these drugs and put strict control, also on over-the-counter and
prescription drugs.

c. Type of Drugs Used in the Past Year (Current Users).

Half of respondents admit the most drug consumed in the past
year is Shabu (47%). This rate is somewhat higher than
cannabis/Cannabis/Ganja (46%), which indicates that the pattern
has shifted from Cannabis/Ganja. that placed the highest rate
before. Television and other mass media informed shabu as the
most popular in 2017. An indication that shabu begins to dominate
the drug market in Indonesia.

Meanwhile, other popular drugs, but much smaller in

proportion are Xanax (16%), ecstasy (16%), and Trihexyphenidyl
(14%). Some three to five years ago ecstasy competed with shabu.
The emergence of some synthetic drugs have taken the interest
of drug abusers. For example, gorilla tobacco (13%) that made
some commotion when a pilot used the drug while entering
the airport. Prescription drugs are still a favourite, like Tramadol
(11%), Dumolid (7%), Zenith (7%), Dextro (7%), Methadone is also
much consumed (8%), and other drugs like putaw and magic
mushroom.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 103
 1) Ever Heard of a New Type of Drug
Among drug abusers 44% admit having heard of a new
drug. Injecting drug users (59%) are the most who know about
these new drugs. Some examples of new drugs are gorilla
tobacco, ganesha, flaka, kratom, liquid shabu, etc. Thus the
information on new drugs is quite known among drug abusers.
2) Drug Abuse and Sex Behaviour
The majority of drug abusers have ever been involved in
active sexual activities, as is seen fom the data of sexual
recognition in the past month (81%), and 68% sexually active,
28%). Most of respondents have their husband/wife as sex
partners (51%), with boy/girl friend (38%), a friend/intimate
friend/acquaintaince (20%). But some respondents also admit
having sex with sex workers (8%) and same gender (3%). The
two last mentioned partners are at high risk of HIV/AIDS
transmission and other contagious sex diseases, and cause
great risk in transmitting the disease to their sex partners. The
pattern of sexbehaviour in the past month is relatively the
same as before. However, only less than one-third (30%) use
the condom for sexual activities.
Some drug abusers were found to have sex for money
(3.4%), and 9.5% admit being invited for a date for the sake of
drugs. Not much difference is found among regular drug
abusers, non-injecting drug users and injecting drug users
related to the condom use and sex behavior.

7. Consequence of Drug Abuse.

a. Symptoms and Diseases Among Drug Abusers.
Drug abusers have great risk of diseases. The survey indicates
that they frequently have five health complaints. They are less
appetite (46%); tightness in the chest (30%); excessive nausea (34%);
prolonged fatigue (31%); heartburn pain (23%). Other complaints
are cough with phlegm more than 2 weeks, diarrhea more than 2
weeks, prolonged fatigue, high fever more than 2 weeks, yellow skin
and nails, skin inflammation (difficult healing of wound), white
thickening in the mouth/throat (moldy), itchy/hot and skin eruption,
red/white/black spots on the skin, disorders of reproductive organs
(impotent, barren, etc.), pain when urinating, swelling in the groin,
armpit and neck respectively (10%).

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 104
 In general, injecting drug addicts have a greater percentage in
reporting their health complaints or symptoms of diseases.
The higher their level of drug use, the greater the percentage
in experiencing their complaints. Injecting drug abusers are the
largest proportion in mentioning their complaints, 41% of
respondents say these complaints cause disruption of physical/
mental activities.

b. The Pattern of Seeking Medication

38% of those with complaints admit getting medication in the
past year. The majority of respondents get medication at medical
services (61%), the majority go to public health centers (34%),
government hospitals (19%), practitioner (19%), private hospital
(16%), and clinic (9%). Those who seek medical examination
approx. half (52%) know of their diagnose. The diagnose
include: mental disorders/depression (26%), lung disease (16%), HIV
(14%), pain in the nerves/joints/movement organs (15%), Hepatitis
C (9%), eye damage/disorders (6%), Hepatitis B (4%), TB (4%).
Candidiasis (4%). and other diseases. The pattern of diseases
among drug abusers from the result of medical examination is
parallel with the rate of drug abuse. The higher the rate of drug
abuse, the higher also the percentage of drug abusers in reporting
their diagnose of diseases. With the exception of mental
disease/depression and eye damage/disorders that are reported by
regular drug abusers.
The group of regular drug users make use of insurance for
medication cost, while drug addicts and injection drug users pay with
their own money or Out of Posket (OOP). The percentage of those
who pay from their own pocket is greater (62%), with BPJS/KIS
(government health insurance) (40%), paid by family (25%), by the
Company (4%), and other Insurance (5%).
Among the sick drug abusers, 42% say they are outpatients,
and 11% are hospitalized. More regular drug abusers prefer
medication as outpatients, while injection drug users are
hospitalized (16%), twice the number of regular drug users (8%). 41%
of respondent have ever followed an HIV test and presently 9% have
taken ARV in the past month, while 8% admit taking ARV during the
survey.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 105
 c. Criminal History
Quite many drug abuser respondents have ever taken money
or valuables owned by the family/other people (including hold up,
theft, robbery, etc.) for the purchase of drugs (25%). Most of them
belong to injecting drug users (54%), (17%) from non-injecting drug
users, and (8.8%) from regular drug users.

One-third of respondents (30%) have ever taken money/

vauables from the family/other people (including a hold up, robbery,
theft etc) for the purchase of drugs in the past year (June 2016 – the
present) from the group who have ever done these criminal actions.
Among the regular drug users (32%), non-injecting drug users
(43%).and injecting drug users (22%).
d. History of Traffic Accident.
One-third of respondents affected by drugs have met
with a traffic accident (29%). From those who have ever met
with an accident 2/3 experienced the accident before the past
year, and the remaining 1/3 experienced in the past year. More
than half of injecting drug users (52%) have experienced a traffic
accident.

Almost one-third of respondents from those who have ever

met with an accident experienced a traffic accident in the past year
(June 2016 – present) from the effect of drug abuse (29%). Most of
them belong to non-injecting drug users (36%). Among regular drug
users (27%) and injecting drug users (24%).

From those who have met with an accident from the effect of
drug abuse, 59% have paid for medication/treatment; 42% paid for
motorcycle repairs from their own pocket, and 9% paid
compensation for vehicle/motorcycle repairs owned by other
people, 7% for police matters, 6% for the victim’s medication, and
6% for the victim’s compensation, 12% admit they have not spent
any cost.

e. History of Drug Trafficking.

Approx, one-fifth of drug abuser respondents (23%) have ever
sold drugs. The most are from injecting drug users (38%), while 18%
are addicts, and 12% from regular drug users.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 106
 Meanwhile, one-third (38%) have sold drugs in the past
year, from those who have ever sold drugs. The proportion is
not much different in each group of drug abusers, although
the proportion is greater among non-injecting drug users (45%),
regular drug users (27%), injection drug users (31%). They have sold
almost all types of drugs, and for each drug respectively less than
1%.

d. Number of Drug Abuse Friends and Mortality Rate from Drugs

Approx 18 respondents reported a friend who died from drugs
in the past year. The data on the total of drug abusers illustrates the
drug abuser network, and this data is used for the prediction of
mortality rate from drugs. The average number of drug using friends
is 13 in the past year, while 20 in the group of injecting drug addicts,
among regular drug users 9, and among non-injecting drug users 11.
The average total of friends who died is 2 persons, and 3 among
injecting drug users. Based on these data the estimated rate of
mortality among drug abusers per year is 5.412 persons. The
decrease in the mortality rate is because the number of injecting
drug users has much reduced, since most of them have died from an
overdose.

8. Social Economic Cost of Drug Abuse.

a. Unit Cost of Drug Abuse.
Every abuse of drugs creates either great or small
consequences. Each consequence from drug abuse creates a
cost. This study endeavors to seek any cost that has to be paid
from the drug abuser’s perspective, the amount calculated
per person per year in the past year. First, the consequence
on the health condition of the respondent. There are 2
possibilities of consequences, either healthy or sick. In a sick
condition, where to go for medication and what measures are
received, to hospital or to another place, outpatient treatment or
hospitalization. Then, trace what kind of illness by focusing on 4
diseases related to drug abuse, namely, HIV/AIDS, Lung TB, Hepatitis
and Candidiasis.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 107
 When the drug abuser goes for medication, who is
accompanying, and how much is the medication cost, how much is
spent during the medication. The median medication cost for
outpatients with HIV/AIDS is up to Rp. 2.000.000/person per year for
males, and Rp. 910.000.- for females. The median cost of outpatient
medication for Lung TB does not differ much for males and females,
RP. 1.000.000.- for males and Ro. 917.000.- for females. The most
expensive median cost is the outpatient medication for candidiasis,
i.e. Rp. 3.900.000.- while hospitalization is somewhat higher. The
median cost for hospitalization of HIV/AIDS patients is between
Rp. 1.000.000 up to Rp. 2.000.000.
Second, cost of an overdose. Not all overdose incidences are
brought to hospital, if it can be handled by friends of the patient by
giving milk to drink or injecting salt water into the body, or keep the
client awake by tapping on the client’s face. A such, the cost spent is
much smaller (even no cost at all) for hospitalization. However, the
cost of an overdose is still present because of the lost productive
time of the individual and family. The median cost of lost time from
an overdose is between Rp. 500.000.- to Rp. 1.900.000.- per person
per year.
Third, The median cost for rehabilitation is approx.,
Rp. 750.000.- per person per year, for males as well as females. The
low cost is because the rehabilitation program is provided free of
charge by NGOs and the government. Clients spent money for their
personal needs. Clients who access private rehabilitation centers
have to pay a much larger cost ranging Rp. 29.000.000.- per year.
Self medication are activities that are performed to stop drug
addiction, such as abstinence from drugs, or take a certain medicine.
The median cost spent is Rp. 200.000.- for males and Rp. 100.000.-
for females.
Fourth, criminal actions, drug abusers tend to perform
criminal actions to get money for buying drugs. The median cost as
aconsequence of criminal actions ranges up to Rp. 1.000.000.- for
males and Rp. 850.000.- for females per year. The maximum cost of
criminal actions is Rp. 19.000.000.- per year.
Fifth, accident incidences also happen to some drug abusers
after drug consumption. The median cost as a consequence of the
incidence that has to be paid is between Rp. 800.000.- to
Rp. 4.300.000.-. The maximum cost ever paid for an accident is
Rp. 69.000.000.- per year.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 108
Table 2.7. Median Value of Unit Cost, For Each Consequence of Drug Abuse, Males &
Females, 2017
GENDER
NO. OUTPATIENT/HOSPITALIZATION TOTAL
MALES FEMALES
1. Outpatient treatment-HIV/AIDS 2,039,560 912,500 1,956,074
2. Outpatient treatment-LungTB 1,088,723 917,083 1,067,042
3. Outpatient treatment-Hepatitis 1,531,493 597,273 1,399,744
4. Outpatient treatment-Candidiasis 3,909,600 - 3,909,600
5. Inpatiebt-HIV AIDS 1,393,333 - 1,194,286
6. Inpatient-New TB 2,196,923 600,000 1,984,000
7. RI-Hepatitis 1,600,909 - 1,467,500
8. RI-Candidiasis 2,000,000 - 2,000,000
9. Outpatient loss 743,887 340,948 692,081
10. Hospitalization loss 298,586 59,950 272,648
11. Overdose - - -
12. Overdose loss 529,957 1,925,000 779,071
13. Rehab 750,000 750,000 750,000
14. Rehab loss 366,886 85,194 300,358
15. Self medication 200,000 100,000 200,000
16. Criminal action 1,000,000 850,000 1,000,000
17. Accident 800,000 430,000 800,000
18. Accident loss 131,148 37,240 114,700
19. Law enforcement 7,000,000 5,500,000 6,000,000
20. Law enforcement loss 147,102 1,060,424 162,888
21. Imprisonment 10,000,000 27,500,000 10,000,000
22. Imprisonment loss 171,618 18,893,625 520,325
23. Disrupted activities 234,052 192,352 225,387

Sixth, encounter with law enforcement. When the drug abuser

was caught by law enforcement apparatus, there will a long process
to be passed till the court’s verdict. During this process there will be
opportunities for law enforcement apparatus to ask a certain
amount of money to stop the case, or reduce the punishment
period. The median of cost spent by the respondent is between
Rp. 5.500.000.- to Rp. 7.000.000.-. The maximum cost mentioned by
respondent is Rp. 90.000.000.- per person.
Seventh, the prison is a place for potential financial
transactions to happen by individuals. The drug abuser inmates have
to deal with matters and pay a median cost of tens of thousands to
Rp. 18.000.000.- per person per year. The cost of drug consumption
per person per year is estimated at an average of Rp. 20.000.000.-
per person per year. There is not much difference between the unit
cost for males and females. The unit cost of consumption has
increased twice the amount compared to 2014. The higher the level
of addiction, the greater the median cost.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 109
 In the context of calculating the estimation of loss the term
used in this study is economic cost, the individual/private cost and
social cost. The private cost is the cost attached to the drug abuser,
including the cost of drug consumption. The social cost is the cost as
a consequence of drug abuse that indirectly affects the community.
This definition more or less refers to Markandya & Pearce definition
(1989). The loss of economic cost from drug abuse in 2017 is
estimated at approx, Rp. 84.7 trillion, an increase compared to
Rp. 63.1 trillion in 2014. If this amount is sorted out, Rp. 77.42 trillion
is estimated for private cost, and Rp. 7.27 trillion for social loss. Most
of the private cost is spent for drug consumption (90%). Morbidity
cost indicates a decrease if compared to 2014, hich is related to the
decline of the morbidity rate from drug abuse. While the social cost
is mostly related to mortality due to drug abuse (premature death)
(58%). Another quite significant cost is the cost of criminal actions
(17%).
Individual/Private Cost
Private cost is the cost attached to the drug abuser. It includes
cost for drug consumption, cost if an overdose occurs, cost for
detoxification & rehabilitation, cost of self medication to stop drug
consumption, cost of a traffic accident, cost if caught by the police
related to drugs, cost for imprisonment, cost of productivity loss as
a consequence of drug abuse, that makes respondent is unable to
work/go to school.
The total individual cost as a consequence of drug abuse was
approx Rp. 77.4 trillion in 2017. The largest cost contributed by drug
consumption, reaching Rp. 69.8 trillion. This amount increased
sharply with a percentage of 63% compared to 2014, which was
caused by the increase in the market price of drugs, particularly for
putaw, shabu, and other drugs. The high price of putaw was caused
by its limited supply and decrease in quality at street level due to the
tight control in preventing the drug from entering Indonesia. The
cost of medication shows a significant decrease to Rp. 1 trillion,
while before it reached Rp. 10.2 trillion. This is related to the
decrease in morbidity rate of the four main diseases that usually
occur among drug addicts, in particular injecting drug addicts. The
decline in morbidity rate is due to the decrease in the number of
injecting drug users, shifting to other drugs and leaving the
consumption of heroin, also activities in harm reduction and no
sharing of needles.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 110
Diagram 2.4. The Trend of Total Economic Loss From Drugs, in 2008, 2011, 2014,
and 2017
90

80 7
Trilyun Rupiah

70

60 7
50
4
40 77
30 6 56
20 44
26
10

-
2008 2011 2014 2017
Total biaya private Total biaya sosial

Table 2.8. Total Economic and Social Loss As a Consequence of Drug Abuse in
Indonesia, 2017 (in Millions)
RUPIAH PERCENTAGE
NO. COST COMPONENT
(IN MILLIONS) (%)
1. Drug consumption 69,848,128 90.22
2. Medication 1,036,467 1.34
3. Overdose 151,925 0.20
4. Detox & Rehabilitation 11,952 0.02
5. Self Medication 1,377,568 1.78
6. Accident 656,397 0.85
7. Encounter with Law Enforcement 1,824,935 2.36
8. Imprisonment 2,003,957 2.59
9. Disrupted Activities 505,861 0.65
Total private cost 77,417,191 100
Productivity Loss
1. Illness 126,604 1.74
2. Overdose 50,642 0.70
3. Detox & Rehabilitation 109,527 1.51
4. Accident 486,053 6.68
5. Law Enforcement Apparatus 41,402 0.57
6. Imprisonment 995,089 13.68
7. Premature Death 4,193,824 57.66
8. Criminal action 1,270,673 17.47
Total social cost 7,273,815 100

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 111
 Sosial Cost
Social cost is the cost spent as a consequence of drug
abuse that indirectly affects the community. Since this study applies
the perspective approach of the client, the largest portion of
calculated cost is the activities performed by other people in relation
with the respondent, by measuring the cost of productivity loss in
connection with the time and cost spent by other people for
accompanying or looking after the respondent. Calculation of the
unit cost uses the minimum regional wages (UMR) per province, in
2017.
Details of the cost components include cost of productivity loss
for looking after/accompanying the sick respondent, when an
overdose incidence occurs, at a traffic accident, encounter with
prison officials, at premature death, and criminal actions. The social
cost is estimated at Rp. 7.3 trillion (2017). The social cost increased
4.7% from 2014. The largest cost contribution is still the cost of
premature death from drug abuse (58%). However, mortality rate
among injecting drug users decreased because the increasing
decline in the rate of ovedose incidence and the number of injecting
drug addicts. But the threat of premature death remains
present because injecting drug addicts substitute with any drug to
fulfill their suggestion need for injection. Other contributions of
costs are productivity loss in prison, (14%) and cost of criminal
actions (17%).

b. Estimation and Projection of Drug Abusers.

The basic data in making a projection is the estimation of 2017.
Based on the trend of data from 2005 to 2017, there is indication of
a decrease in the prevalence of drug abuse among workers and
students. That becomes the basic in the making of an assumption on
the pattern of decrease for the projection from 2012 to 2022.
BMM’s program target is used in finding the assumption of
decrease, i.e. 0.02% per year for workers and students (high school/
university), while 0.01% per year for households, which has a more
stable pattern. This number is then multiplied with 5 years,
according to the target year 2020. Then added as the target number
of 2020. The logistic regression is applied in determining the
prevalence rate from 2017 to 2020.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 112
 The prevalence rate of drug abuse tends to be relatively
stagnant in 5 years ahead, from 2017 to 2022. The number of drug
abusers is about 3.3 million in the coming 5 years. There was some
decrease, but increased again as the decrease in the prevalence of
drug abuse is smaller compared to the increase of population in the
age of 10- 59 years. This also indicates that the decrease of the
absolut prevalence of drug abuse has become much more difficult
(hard rock). Like a pear for example, if it is pressed, there will be a
part that cannot be further pressed. Some extra efforts are needed
to give more pressure, on the program strategy as wel as its funding.
Details of the drug abuse projection is presented in the following
Table.

Table 2.9. Projection of the Total of Drug Abusers in the Past Year, 2017 – 2022 (In
Thousands)

NO. GENDER SCENARIO 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

1. Males Increase 2,687 2,669 2,671 2,673 2,673 2,695

Stable 2,443 2,426 2,428 2,430 2,430 2,450

Decrease 2,198 2,183 2,185 2,187 2,187 2,205

2. Females Increase 1,027 1,023 1,026 1,029 1,031 1,041

Stable 933 930 933 935 938 946

Decrease 840 837 839 842 844 851

3. Total Increase 3,714 3,692 3,697 3,701 3,704 3,736

Stable 3,376 3,356 3,361 3,365 3,368 3,396

Decrease 3,039 3,020 3,025 3,028 3,031 3,056

There are 3 scenarios developed in the above table, namely,

increase, stable and decrease. In the scenario of increase an increase
occurs if the pressure of drug dealers and syndicates are stronger
than prevention efforts and disclosures of drug cases, resulting in the
increase of drug abusers. The scenario of decrease indicates the
decrease of drug abusers as a result of a stronger pressure from law
enforcement and the community in the prevention of drug abuse
and in dealing with drugs, in particular from aspects of socialization,
education and law enforcement. The stable scenario is the condition
with relatively no increase or decrease from year to year, because
there is an equal force between law enforcement and the
community against drug dealers/syndicates.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 113
 If the scenario goes up, the number of drug abusers increases
from 3.3 million (2017) to 3.7 million (2022). If the scenario
decreases, there will be a decrease from 3.3 million to 3.0 million
(2017). If the scenario is stable, the estimation is that there will 3.3
million in 2017. Meanwhile, the prevalence rate of drug abuse
indicates a tendency of decrease. If in 2017 the prevalence rate is
1.8%, it becomes 1.7% in 2022 in a stable scenario. Likewise the
same is shown in other scenarios. So the conclusion is that the
absolute number is stable, but the prevalence of drug abuse tends
to decrease. Details are shown in the table below.

Table 2.10. Projection of Prevalence Rate of Drug Abuse in the Past Year, 2017-2022
(%)

NO. SCENARIO 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

1. Increase 1.95 1.92 1.90 1.88 1.87 1.87

2. Stable 1.77 1.74 1.73 1.71 1.70 1.70

3. Decrease 1.59 1.57 1.55 1.54 1.53 1.53

c. Social Economic Loss from Drug Abuse.

The projection of the loss of economic and social cost as a
consequence of drug abuse is based on the calculation of the loss of
social economic cost in 2017. From the basic data a projection is
made by applying the future value method. Future value is a method
used for equalizing the present value of money to the future. The
assumption is applied with an interest rate of 4% per year. The
analysis of calculation is based on gender. From the 3 scenarios we
only make a calculation for the stable scenario.
It is projected that there will be an increase in the social and
economic loss from drug abuse approx, almost 2 times from Rp. 84.7
trillion to Rp. 152.5 trillion in 2022. The cost among males is higher
than the group of females.
As regard the cost component of drug consumption, it is
projected to increase from Rp. 69.8 trillion (2017) to Rp. 125.8 trillion
(2022). This amount is very tempting as a business opportunity,
particularly for drug syndicates to penetrate deeper into the drug
market for greater profits. It seems that the drug business never
dies. All layers of society together with law enforcement have to
make efforts, to press drug trafficking.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 114
Table 2.11. Projection of Economic Loss from 2017 to 2022 (In Millions Rp)
PRIVATE COST/
NO. 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
SOCIAL COST
1. Private Cost
Drug Consumption 69,848,128 72,642,053 78,569,645 88,382,993 103,399,264 125,805,884
Medication 1,036,467 1,077,926 1,165,885 1,311,504 1,534,328 1,866,817
Overdose 151,925 158,002 170,895 192,240 224,902 273,638
Detox &
11,952 12,430 13,445 15,124 17,693 21,528
Rehabilitation
Self Medication 1,377,568 1,432,671 1,549,577 1,743,119 2,039,275 2,481,186
Accident 656,397 682,653 738,358 830,579 971,694 1,182,260
Encounter with Law
1,824,935 1,897,932 2,052,804 2,309,199 2,701,532 3,286,954
Enforcement
Imprisonment 2,003,957 2,084,115 2,254,179 2,535,726 2,966,546 3,609,396
Disrupted Activities 505,861 526,096 569,025 640,096 748,849 911,124
Total Private Cost 77,417,191 80,513,879 87,083,812 97,960,580 114,604,082 139,438,787
2. Social Cost
Productivity Loss
Illness 126,604 131,668 142,413 160,200 187,418 228,031
Overdose 50,642 52,667 56,965 64,080 74,967 91,213
Detox &
109,527 113,908 123,203 138,591 162,138 197,273
Rehabilitation
Accident 486,053 505,495 546,744 615,032 719,526 875,447
Law Enforcement 41,402 43,058 46,572 52,389 61,290 74,571
Imprisonment 995,089 1,034,893 1,119,340 1,259,145 1,473,074 1,792,289
Premature Death 4,193,824 4,361,577 4,717,482 5,306,695 6,208,303 7,553,642
Criminal Action 1,270,673 1,321,500 1,429,334 1,607,858 1,881,033 2,288,653
Total Social Cost 7,273,815 7,564,767 8,182,052 9,203,991 10,767,749 13,101,120
Total Social &
84,691,006 88,078,646 95,265,864 107,164,570 125,371,831 152,539,907
Economic Cost

9. Prevention Policies and Countermeasures.

Many sectors have initiated regulations that enable the
implementation of the Prevention and Eradication of Drug Abuse and Illicit
Trafficking (P4GN) on a strong basis. Indonesia’s Laws and Regulations,
also policies are considered very complete in dealing with the abuse of
narcotics and other addictive substances. No other field has such a
complete legal basis like the P4GN program. At the legislative level there
is Law No. 35 of the year 2009 on Narcotics, and Law No. 36 of the year
2009 on Health that regulates the handling of abusers of narcotics and
other addictive substances. At the executive level there are two
regulations : Presidential Instruction No. 12 of 2011, on the National
Policies and Strategy on the Prevention and Eradication of Drug Abuse and
Illicit Trafficking in Drugs (P4GN), and Government Regulation No. 25 of
the year 2011, on the Implementation of Compulsory Reporting of
Narcotic Addicts. Two highest levels of legislation is the proof of the
government’s very strong support in dealing drug abuse.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 115
 The Regulation of the Minister of Internal Affairs No. 21 of the year
2013 on Facilitation in the Prevention of Narcotic Abusers provides
opportunities for the Regional Administration of their involvement in the
handling of drug abuse. It is the realization of a synergy in handling drug
abuse. The regulation sets the role of the governor/regent/mayor, in
funding, guidance and reporting of P4GN facilitation. The regulation also
stresses the local administration’s responsibility in dealing with drug
abuse. Facilitation is in the form of: Issue regional regulation; enhance
community participation; counterpart/cooperation with community
organizations; private sector; universities/colleges; volunteers;
individuals; and/or legal entities; involve forum of religious communities;
forum of early community alertness; regional intelligence community for
the prevention of narcotics abuse; and plan a program and activities in the
prevention of narcotics abuse (Article 4). Facilitation in the prevention of
narcotics abuse is performed through activities such as: seminars;
workshops; quran recitals; performance; art and culture festivals;
outbound activities such as camping; jamboree; tracking; speech contest;
march; song composition; community empowerment; community
training; scientific writings; and socialization; dissemination; technical
assistance and guidance, (Article 5). BNNP can further explore the
opportunities to enhance efforts in the prevention of drug abuse by
making use of the available resources in the Local Administration.
The Regulation of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration
Republic of Indonesia No. Per. 11/Men/VI/2005 on the prevention and
eradication of drug abuse and illicit trafficking in narcotics, psychotropic
substances and other addictive substances in the workplace. The
entrepreneur has the obligation to implement active efforts in P4GN in the
workplace such as: a. determine policies; b. program planning and
implementation. The Minister of Internal Affairs Regulation can be the
foundation of the government to demand the company and manager to
develop P4GN activities. The local government can urge companies in
their respective regions to perform P4GN activities according to their
respective capacities. The local administration should care and understand
its role in as laid out in the Minisiter of Internal Affairs Regulation No. 21
of the year 2013.
The last policy is related to Compulsory Reporting of Narcotic
Addicts. This policy directs the abusers of narcotics and other addictive
substances to report themselves to undergo rehabilitation at the
appointed rehabilitation facility or institution for compulsory reporting
(IPWL). Positive responses were received as many parties agree that the
prison is not the place to solve the problem of drug abuse. General and
special prisons have limited accommodation and capacity to nurture the
arrested drug abusers. Related ministries and institutions fully support this
policy although there are still many inter agency issues that have to be
finished for the smooth implementation of this policy.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 116
 At the level of ministries. institutions and technical agencies some
joint policies and agreements have been made to support IPWL. In 2014 a
Joint Regulation was issued between Chairman of the Supreme Court RI;
Minister of Law and Human Rights RI; Miniter of Health RI; Minister of
Social Affairs RI; Attorney General Office RI; Head of National Police RI;
Head of BNN RI; No: 01/PB/MA/III/2014; No.: 03/2014; No: 11/2014; PER-
005/A/JA/03/2014; No:1/2014 and PERBER/01/III/2014/BNN to facilitate
the implementation in placing narcotic abusers in rehabilitation
institutions.
However, the direction of P4GN policies of the related agencies
change along with the latest condition and situation. These circumstances
can also change the present program’s focus. BNN seems to change its
focus from rehabilitation to supply reduction through more aggressive
repressive actions and arrests of drug dealers.
The ever changing focus of policies is a common thing in following
the leaders’ condition, situation and vision. This actually does not
significantly influence anything if the available system of integrated
service is strong and responsive at all levels. The society knows quite
sufficiently how to recognize, respond and find the right way out to P4GN.
There is a trusted center of consultation and rehabilitation that can
provide sufficient and accessible services without putting a stigma and
judgement, and good inter-agency cooperation. Strengthening of a
particular focus without weakening other focuses are the rational efforts
to make all programs run well.

10. Pattern of Activities and Law Enforcement Efforts.

a. Number of Drug Cases.
The tendency of three main classifications of drugs, narcotics,
psychotropic substances, and other substances are the main drugs
of abuse. In the 5 past years the abuse of narcotics tends to increase;
The National Police and BNN reported the number of drug cases
according to drug classification shows an increase of 24% in 2015
and 27% in 2016. Likewise with disclosures of cases related to
psychotropic substances that sharply increased in 2016 (73%).

Table 2.12. Total Drug Cases Based on Drug Classification, 2012-2016

YEAR
CLASSIFICATION OF
NO. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
CASES
N % N % N % N % N %
1. Narcotics 19,081 66 21,269 60 23,134 66 28,588 70 36,297 76
2. Psychotropic
1,729 6 1,612 5 838 2 891 2 1,540 3
substances
3. Other addictive
7,917 28 12,705 36 10,885 31 11,418 28 9,774 21
substances
28,727 100 35,586 100 34,857 100 40,897 100 47,611 100
Source : National Police & BNN March 2017, in the data journal of BNN Center of Data, Research and
Information 2017

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 117
 b. Characteristics of Suspects
The total number of drug suspects are increasingly escalating
from 2012. There was an increase of 69% in 2016 along with the
increase of drug cases. Almost all suspects are Indonesians; only less
than 1% are of a foreign nationality. This indicates that the
.involvement of local citizens as drug dealers is still high. The
majority of suspects are males (>90%). Only a small part are females
(<10%).

In connection with the age of drug suspects, half of them are

>30 years, and the other half 16-19 years. Involvement of children
under 16-19 years tend to decrease from 6% in 2012 to 4% in 2016.

More than half the portion of suspects are from Senior High
School/same degree. This proportion is stable in the 5 past years.
With regard to occupation, the majority have the profession of
private employee/worker and entrepreneur (67%). The group of
unemployed is the second large group of suspects, with a proportion
of 12%. A most alarming fact is the highly involvement of
highschool/university students in drug cases, indicating a quite
stable trend (4 %) in the past 5 years (Table 2.13).

Table 2.13. Characteristics of Drug Suspects of Drug Cases, 2012-2016

YEAR
CLASSIFICATION
NO. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
OF CASES
N % N % N % N % N %
N 35,640 100 44.012 100 43,459 100 51,332 100 60,389 100
1. Nationality
Indonesian 35,524 99.7 43,885 99.7 43,264 99.6 51,158 99.7 60,226 99.7
Foreign 116 0. 127 0.3 195 0.4 174 0.3 163 0.3
2. Sex
Males 32,358 90.0 39,715 90.2 39,383 90.6 47,079 91.7 55,439 91.8
Females 3,282 9. 4,297 9.8 4,076 9.4 4,253 8.3 4,950 8.2
3. Age
<16 years 132 0.37 122 0.28 130 0.30 99 0.19 126 0.21
16-19 years 2,106 5.91 2,382 5.41 2,254 5.19 2,164 4.22 2,312 3.83
20-24 years 5,478 15.37 6,269 14.24 6,555 15.08 7,174 13.98 8,889 14.72
25-29 years 10,339 29.01 16,216 36.84 14,195 32.66 15,275 29.76 17,637 29.21
>30 years 17,585 49.34 19,023 43.22 20,325 46.77 26,620 51.86 31,425 52.04
4. Education
Elementary 4,980 13.97 7,573 17.21 7,147 16.45 7,112 13.85 8,008 13.26
Jumior High 9,768 27.41 12,216 27.76 12,373 28.47 12,765 24.87 15,368 25.45
Senior High 19,730 55.36 23,086 52.45 22,708 52.25 30,055 58.55 35,331 58.51
University 1,162 3.26 1,137 2.58 1,231 2.83 1,367 2.66 1,619 2.68
Do/No Schoo-
33 0.06 63 0.10
ling/Others

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 118
 YEAR
CASE
NO. 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
CLASSIFICATION
N % N % N % N % N %
5. Occupation
Civil servant 320 0.90 413 0.94 362 0.83 453 0.88 468 0.77
Police/Armwd
287 0.81 262 0.60 326 0.75 355 0.69 389 0.64
Forces
Private sector 16,071 45.09 19,804 45.00 18,511 42.59 20,778 40.48 24,236 40.13
Entrepreneur 7,545 21.17 9,105 20.69 11,430 26.30 14,357 27.97 16,481 27.29
Farmer 1,388 3.89 2,108 4.79 1,551 3.57 1,869 3.64 2,087 3.46
Labour 4,025 11.29 4,954 11.26 4,570 10.52 5,283 10.29 6,438 10.66
Univ. student 710 1.99 870 1.98 883 2.03 981 1.91 1,100 1.82
Student 695 1.95 1,121 2.55 778 1.79 874 1.70 1,260 2.09
Unemployed 4,599 12.90 5,375 12.21 5,048 11.62 6,382 12.43 7,390 12.24
6. Drug
classification
Narcotics 25,309 71.01 28,788 65.41 3,184 7.33 38,152 74.32 47,384 78.46
Psychotropic
2,062 5.79 1,868 4.24 978 2.25 1,014 1.98 1,778 2.94
Substances
Other addictive
8,269 23.20 13,356 30.35 11,397 26.22 12,166 23.70 11,227 18.59
subst.

Source : Police & BNN March 2017, in the Data Journal of BNN Center of Research, Data and
Information (Puslitdatin) 2017 (re-processed)

c. Data of Seized Evidence

Seizures are usually classified into 3 types of drug
classification, narcotics, psychoactive substances and others. The
large variation of seizures each year indicates performance of the
law enforcement apparatus, BNN, Police and Directorate of Customs
& Excise, Ministry of Finance RI.
Narcotic seizures. The most popular narcotic is cannabis/
cannabis/ganja. Data from the Police RI and BNN show large seizures
every year, but in the past 3 years tend to decrease from 68 million
grams in 2014 to 29 million grams in 2015, and 13 million grams in
2016. This indicates the presence of consistency between the
decrease of seized cannabis/cannabis/ganja and the increase in
disclosures of cultivation areas and cannabis trees.

Table 2.14. Total Seized Cannabis/Cannabis/Ganja, 2012-2016

YEAR
NO. SEIZED EVIDENCE
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1. Cannabis leaves (gr) 22,335,281,98 17,777,142 68,541,87,75 29,389,319 13,889,499
2. Cannabis plants 341,395,00 534,829 92,481 101,195 2,196,418
3. Cannabis seeds (gr) 284,91 12 378 6 1,583
Source : Police & BNN March 2017. in the Data Journal of Puslitdatin – BNN 2017

There is a tendency of increase and variety in the cultivation

area of cannabis in the past 5 years. In 2012, 89.5 hectares, 2013
119.9 Ha, decreased drastically to 13 Ha, but increased again to
166.5 Ha (2015), another increase of 425 Ha in 2016. It is a serious
challenge for activists of community empowerment in the field, how
to converse cannabis into productive vegetation or other business.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 119
 Total Narcotic seizures. The total seizures of narcotics, particularly
heroin tend to decrease, but the amount remains relatively large,
from 52.4 thousand grams in 2012 to 2.2 thousand grams in 2016.
This indicates that cannabis/Cannabis/Ganja is still available in the
market although in an increasingly lesser amount and expensive in
price. This condition also instigate a decrease in the number of
injecting drug users. Ecstasy seizures are still high, more than 1.6
million tablets were confiscated in 2016. While seizures of shabu are
also high in 2016 (2.6 million grams) although less in 2015 (4.2
million grams).
Table 2.15. Total Seized Narcotics, 2012-2016
SEIZED YEAR
NO.
EVIDENCE 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1. Heroin (gr) 52,425.24 11,269.94 12,195.44 13,329.34 2,262.06
2. Cocaine (gr) 6,736.84 2,035 373.33 10.54 369.03
3. Hashish (gr) 7,836.44 2,067.68 4,237.49 199.62 2,982.96
4. Ecstasy (tbl) 4,271,619.00 1,165,178 490,121.25 1,980,873 1,694,970
5. Shabu (gr) 2,054,149.51 542,652.32 1,147,588.54 4,420,166.83 2,631,078.89
Source : Police & BNN March 2017, in the Data Journal of Puslitdatin – BNN 2017 (re-processed)

Total Seized Psychotropic Substances. Total seized

psychotropic substances by the Police and BNN till March 2017
indicate that Controlled medicines and barbiturates are discovered
again in the 2 past years. In 2014 seizures reached 14 million tablets,
then went down to 1.6 million tablets in 2015, but increased again
in 2016 to 4.9 million tablets. After reaching a total of 426 thousand
tablets in 2012, went down drastically from 2013 to 2015 within a
range of 7,300 tablets to 9,500 tablets, but increased again in 2016
to 42 thousand tablets.

Table 2.16. Total Seized Psychotropic Substances

YEAR
NO. SEIZED EVIDENCE
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1. Benzodiazepines (Tbl) 512,523.00 460,806.75 356,631.00 1,247,895 723,527.00
2. Barbiturates (Tbl) 426,793.50 181 9,571.00 7,332.00 42,952.00
3. Ketamine (gr) 13,426.00 4,661.51 13,400.09 6,504.98 7.60
4. Controlled medicines 2,064,302.50 5,869,329.50 14,729,227.75 1,646,224.50 4,970,301.00
(Tbl)
Source : Police & BNN March 2017, in the Data Jornal of Puslitdatin – BNN 2017
Development of New Psychoactive Substances. UNODC 2017
Report stated that the crisis in the high opiates abuse, is getting
resolved, but another threat is emerging of no lesser magnitude,
namely, Amphetamine-Type Stimulant (ATS), and New Psychoactive
Substances (NPS). UNODC reported that many more States inform
the trafficking of NPS, and more than 20 tons of NPS were seized
during 2015. Likewise with multiple seizures of Amphetamine-Type
Stimulan (ATS) in 5 years, that reached 191 tons.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 120
 NPS are very variable, and develop very fast. They suddenly
emerge in the market and quickly disappear again from circulation.
The combination of substances are miscellaneous. From 2009 to
2015 ( 80) new main groups of NPS have been found and are already
in circulation. Some of these NPS are already listed under
international control. On the other hand, 60 old NPS seems to have
disappeared from circulation since 2013. NPS continues to develop
dynamically marking the emergence of many chemical variations.
Between 2009 and 2016, 106 States and regions reported 739
different NPS to UNODC (UNODC, 2017).

NPS in Indonesia are generally a derivative of cathinone,

cathinone and cathine, synthetic cannabinoid, phenethyamine,
piperazine, ketamine and tryptamine. From 60 NPS indentified only
43 NPS are under control and classified as addictive and narcotics by
the Minister of Health Regulation No.: 2 of 2017 (BNN, 2017).
Control is necessary because of the high risk in the consumption of
NPS. These substances are very dangerous as the user does not
realize its content and its dose that is potentially able to endanger
health. It happened in Sulawesi, Indonesia in 2017. The medicine
that should not endanger a person’s health becomes dangerous
because of its additional content.

11. Conclusion.
Some conclusions drawn from the study refers to the aim to be
achieved:

a. The estimation and projection of drug abuse tend to be stable from

2017 to 2022. This is due to the effort in decreasing the rate of drug
abuse that has reached the phase that is increasingly difficult to get
an absolute decrease (hard rock), of approx. 3.3 million drug
abusers. It will be increasingly difficult in the effort to reduce the
absolute number of drug abusers since the percentage of drug
prevalence is lower than the increase of population growth that
makes an impression of a stagnant condition. What is needed is an
extraordinary continuous program strategy and activities with
more innovations to significantly reduce drug abuse through
prevention and law enforcement and determine a higher target
achievement.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 121
 b. The pattern of drug use does not differ much from the surveys
before. the most consumed drugs are cannabis/ganja, shabu,
ecstasy, and controlled medicines. To obtain these drugs some
methods of transactions and illicit trafficking are applied: face to face
transaction, direct purchase from the dealer; the use of a courier;
direct purchase at the center of drug trafficking in the city; by
temple/mine system, i.e. the buyer transfers some money and the
drug dealer/syndicate gives insructions where the drug abuser has
to take the drug; the last popular method is online purchase,
especially for NPS. They also form a special group in the online
system using a code or certain password for access.
c. Policies and regulations on the prevention of drug abuse and
eradication against illicit drug trafficking is already very strong. From
the law at the upper level to the level of implementation in the
region/city. What is necessary is the strong will and wish of all
parties to take actions together in one language and one
coordination in dealing with drug abuse. On the other hand.
although policies have been made by a joint decision, the IPWL
program is not fully implemented, some problems are met in the
field since no technical guidelines are provided for the
implementation of IPWL, also the issue of sectoral ego. As a result,
everybody has a different perception and interpretation. Only
Minister of Health and Minister of Social Affairs have developed
technical guilines on the implementation of IPWL. Another problem
that impedes the PWL implementation is the limited referral
facilities for rehabilitation. available funds, and the quantity and
capacity of human resources.
d. Drug abuse brings consequences that have to be borne by the drug
abuser, such as the risk of being exposed to diseases, so the client
has to seek for medication at the hospital or health clinic as an
outpatient or being hospitalized. In seeking medication drug abusers
already know the diagnose of their illness, i.e. HIV/AIDS. Lung TB,
Hepatitis C, Mental illness/depression, 1 Out of 10 clients have
experienced an overdose, and 1 out of 20 have received rehabili-
tation. Approx. 10% of respondents admit they have intention to
undergo rehabilitation in the near future (1-12 months ahead), and
45% of respondents have no intention to stop, 10% have no thought
to stop taking drugs. One out of 3 respondents confessed they have
ever taken money or valuables of the family/another person.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 122
 1/5 of respondents have ever met with a traffic accident from the
influence of drugs. Almost 1/5 of respondents admit they were
arrested by law enforcement for a drug case, 13% of respondents
have ever been imprisoned. Ironically, almost all respondents in the
provinces except Papua, who have been imprisoned confessed they
have taken drugs in prison.
e. The median cost of consequence varies every year, in the amount as
well as in gender. The median cost for hospitalization is approx.
Rp. 6 million/person per year. The largest median cost ever spent is
for drug consumption, namely Rp 10.8 million per person/year, and
the cost during imprisonment Rp.10 million/person per year. The
higher the level of addiction, the larger the cost for drug
consumption, or for the purchase of drugs.

f. Social and economic cost from drugs is estimated at Rp. 63.1 trillion
in 2014. It tends to increase from year to year. The largest cost
component of private cost is especially for drug consumption. The
business of drug trafficking is estimated at Rp. 42.9 trillion per year.
The social economic cost from drugs is estimated to increase 2.3
times to Rp. 143 trillion in 2015.

Based on the above summary of facts and data this study concludes
the following:

a. Drug abuse and illicit trafficking maintain to occur, even more

international syndicates are eager to sell their products in Indonesia,
because this country has a stable and excellent economic condition
is a potential market for drugs.
b. Counter measures are not taken to the optimum since inter-agency
coordination does not run as expected so there is no cooperation
and some programs are not integrated. One simple example is the
IPWL program.
c. New synthetic drugs are continuously increasing and entering
Indonesia, by online sale. On the other hand, these new substances
have not been included in the legislation system, and cannot be
prosecuted. Also controlled medicines (hard medicines) are falsified
by illegal factories making the young generation as their target with
their limited financial condition. Not like in the case of narcotic drugs
the handling of controlled medicines is very different, and difficult to
implement law enforcement measures in the field.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 123
 d. The more serious the narcotic addiction, the greater it’s effect,
particularly on the family and environment. The family can suddenly
fall into bankcruptcy because they have to pay medication for the
addicted family member. If accumulated to the national level the
economic social cost becomes larger reaching Rp. 84.6 trillion in
2017.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 124
1. Supply Reduction
a. Cases, Suspects and Seizures of Drug Crimes, Handled by Police and BNN,
2017

Table 3.1. Total Drug Cases Based on Type of Drug, 2017

TOTAL CASES
NO. TYPE OF DRUG TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5
1. Cannabis/Ganja 3,931 103 4,034
2. Heroin 9 4 13
3. Hashish 2 1 3
4. Cocaine 8 1 9
5. Ecstasy 1,551 42 1,593
6. Amphetamine 0 3 3
7. Shabu 29,730 820 30,550
8. Gorilla Tobacco 203 0 203
9. Khat (Cathinone dan Cathin) 0 3 3
10. 4-CMC (Derivative of Cathinone) 0 1 1
11. DMT (Derivative of Triptamin) 0 2 2
12. Psychotropic Substances & Precursors 0 4 4
13. Mushroom 6 0 6
14. Included in Table III 225 0 225
15. Included in Table IV 337 0 337
16. Controlled Medicines/Hard Drugs 3,090 0 3,090
17. Alcohol 10,209 0 10,209
18. Jamu Traditional 14 0 14
19. Cosmetics 16 0 16
20. Food 2 0 2
21. Synthetic Cannabinoid 10 5 15
22. Ketamine 16 0 16
23. Hard Drugs 1,062 0 1,062
24. Limited Hard Drugs 50 0 50
25. Over-the-Counter Drugs 3 0 3
TOTAL 50,474 990 51,464
Source : Police dan BNN, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 125
 Table 3.2. Total Drug Cases Based on Drug Classification, 2017

TOTAL CASES
NO. DRUG CLASSIFICATION TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5

1. Narcotics 35,440 975 36,415

2. Psychotropic Substances 3,652 0 3,652

Psychotropic Substances and

3. 0 4 4
Precursors (Clan Labs)

4. Other Addictive Substances 10,241 0 10,241

New Psychoacative Substances

5. 26 11 37
(NPS)

6. Medicines 1,115 0 1,115

Money Laundering Crimes

7. 0 21 21
(TPPU)

TOTAL 50,474 1,011 51,485

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Table 3.3. Total Drug Cases Based on Type of Crime, 2017

TOTAL CASES
NO. TYPE OF CRIME TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5

1. Cultivation 34 0 34

2. Production 7 4 11

3. Distribution 39,611 986 40,597

4. Consumption 10,822 0 10,822

TOTAL 50,474 990 51,464

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 126
 Table 3.4. Ranking of Successful Disclosures Related to Narcotics,
Psychotropic Substances and Other Addictive Substances By
Province, 2017
TOTAL CASES
NO. PROVINCE TOTAL RANKING
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. East Java 13,514 67 13,581 I
2. DKI Jakarta 6,286 36 6,322 II
3. North Sumatera 5,980 95 6,075 III
4. West Java 2,756 50 2,806 IV
5. South Kalimantan 2,453 43 2,496 V
6. East Kalimantan 2,227 78 2,305 VI
7. Central Java 2,044 28 2,072 VII
8. South Sumatera 1,780 43 1,823 VIII
9. Lampung 1,772 14 1,786 IX
10. Aceh 1,609 15 1,624 X
11. South Sulawesi 1,420 27 1,447 XI
12. Riau 1,394 24 1,418 XII
13. Bali 870 45 915 XIII
14. Central Kalimantan 750 28 778 XIV
15. West Sumatera 762 10 772 XV
16. Banten 561 13 574 XVI
17. Jambi 548 22 570 XVII
18. West Kalimantan 521 19 540 XVIII
19. West Nusa Tenggara 490 7 497 XIX
20. DI Yogyakarta 401 22 423 XX
21. Riau Islands 350 51 401 XXI
22. Central Sulawesi 325 30 355 XXII
23. Bangka Belitung 304 10 314 XXIII
24. Police HQ/Central BNN 176 72 248 XXIV
25. Papua 229 16 245 XXV
26. North Sulawesi 210 9 219 XXVI
27. S.E. Sulawesi 173 20 193 XXVII
28. Bengkulu 163 11 174 XXVIII
29. West Sulawesi 110 21 131 XXIX
30. West Papua 88 6 94 XXX
31. Maluku 84 9 93 XXXI
32. North Maluku 71 13 84 XXXII
33. Gorontalo 39 19 58 XXXIII
34. East Nusa Tenggara 14 2 16 XXXIV
35 North Kalimantan 0 15 15 XXXV
TOTAL 50,474 990 51,464
Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 127
 Table 3.5. Total Suspects of Drug Cases Based on Type of Drug, 2017

TOTAL SUSPECTS
NO. TYPE OF DRUG TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5
1. Cannabis/Ganja 4,981 137 5,118
2. Heroin 9 4 13
3. Hashish 2 2 4
4. Cocaine 13 1 14
5. Ecstasy 2,199 58 2,257
6. Amphetamine 0 3 3
7. Shabu 39,212 1.184 40,395
8. Gorila Tobacco 258 0 258
9. Khat (Cathinone & Cathin) 0 0 0
4-CMC (derivative of
10. 0 2 2
Cathinone)
11. DMT (derivative of triptamin) 0 2 2
Psychotropic Substances &
12. 0 17 17
Precursors
13. Mushroom 9 0 9
14. Included in Table III 296 0 296
15. Included inTable IV 367 0 367
Controlled Medicines/Hard
16. 3,514 0 3,514
Drugs
17. Alcohol 10,806 0 10,806
18. Traditional Jamu 12 0 12
19. Cosmetics 21 0 21
20. Food 2 0 2
21. Synthetic Cannabinoid 12 9 21
22. Ketamine 16 0 16
23. Hard Drugs 1,319 0 1,319
24. Limited Hard Drugs 57 0 57
25. Over-the-Counter Drugs 3 0 3
TOTAL 63,108 1,419 64,526
Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 128
 Table 3.6. Total Suspects of Drug Cases Based on Drug Classification,
2017

TOTAL SUSPECTS
NO. DRUG CLASSIFICATION TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5
1. Narcotics 46,683 1,389 48,072
2. Psychotropic Substances 4,177 0 4,177
Psychotropic Substances ans
3. 0 17 17
Precursors (Clan Labs)
4. Other Addictive Substances 10,841 0 10,841
New Psychoactive
5. 28 13 41
Substances
6. Medicines 1,379 0 1,379
7. Money Laundering / TPPU 0 31 31
TOTAL 63,108 1,450 64,558
Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Table 3.7. Total Suspects of Drug Cases Based on Type of Crime, 2017

TOTAL SUSPECTS
NO. TYPE OF CRIME TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5
1. Cultivation 23 0 23
2. Production 24 17 41
3. Distribution 4,697 1,402 50,099
4. Consumption 14,364 0 14,364
TOTAL 63,108 1,419 64,527
Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Table 3.8. Total Suspects of Drug Cases Based on Nationality, 2017

TOTAL SUSPECTS
NO. NATIONALLITY TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5
1. Indonesian 6,972 1,407 64,379
2. Foreigners 136 12 148
TOTAL 63,108 1,419 64,527
Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 129
 Table 3.9. Total Suspects of Drug Cases Based on Nationality and Gender,
2017

TOTAL SUSPECTS
NO. NATIONALITY AND GENDER TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5
1. Indonesians 62,972 1,406 64,378
Males 57,692 1,287 58,979
Females 5,280 120 5,400
2. Foreigners 136 12 148
Males 120 11 131
Females 16 1 17
TOTAL 63,108 1,419 64,527
Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Table 3.10. Total Suspects of Drug Cases Based on Gender, 2017

TOTAL SUSPECTS
NO. GENDER TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5
1. Males 57,812 1,298 59,110
2. Females 5,296 121 5,417
TOTAL 63,108 1,419 64,527
Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Table 3.11. Total Drug Suspects Based on Age, 2017

TOTAL SUSPECTS
NO. AGE GROUP TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5
1. <16 Years 114 3 117

2. 16-19 Years 2,578 31 2,609

3. 20-24 Years 9,530 178 9,708

4. 25-29 Years 18,105 234 18,339

5. > 30 Years 32,781 973 33,754

TOTAL 63,108 1,419 64,527

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 130
 Table 3.12. Total Suspects of Drug Cases Based on Education, 2017

TOTAL SUSPECTS
NO. EDUCATION TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5

1. Elementary 9,641 198 9,839

2. Junior High School 16,704 195 16,899

3. Senior High School 35,196 909 36,105

4. University 1,567 70 1,637

5. Drop Out 0 35 35

6. No Schooling 0 12 12

TOTAL 63,108 1,419 64,527

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Table 3.13. Total Suspects of Drug Cases Based on Occupation, 2017

TOTAL SUSPECTS
NO. OCCUPATION TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5
Govt Employee/Civil
1. 396 26 422
Servant

2. Police/Armed Forces 354 13 367

3. Private sector 25,481 503 25,984

4. Entrepreneur 16,703 497 17,200

5. Farmer 2,578 47 2,625

6. Labourer 6,832 70 6,902

7. Univ. Student 1,266 61 1,327

8. Student 1,034 16 1,050

9. Unemployed 8,464 186 8,650

TOTAL 63,108 1,419 64,527

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 131
 Table 3.14. Total Foreigners Involved in Drug Crimes in Indonesia, 2017

TOTAL SUSPECTS
NO. NATIONALITY TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3
I. A s i a
1. Malaysia 39 7 46
2. Taiwan 19 19
3. South Korea 1 1
4. Saudi Arabia 2 2
5. Turkey 2 2
6. China 13 13
7. PNG 16 16
8. Japan 1 1
9. Hong Kong 1 1
10. Singapore 1 1
11. India 3 3
TOTAL 94 11 105
II. E r o p e
1. Germany 2 2
2. Russia 2 2
3. Italia 2 2
4. France 1 1
5. Netherland 2 2
6. Sweden 1 1
7. England 2 2
TOTAL 13 13
III. A f r i c a
1. Nigeria 12 12
2. South Africa 7 7
3. Kenya 2 2
4. Tanzania 1 1
TOTAL 22 22
IV. Australia
1. Australia 4 4
TOTAL 4 4
V. United States
1. USA 3 1 4
GRAND TOTAL 136 12 148
Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 132
 Table 3.15. Ranking of Successful Arrest of Suspects Related to Narcotics,
Psychotropic Substances, and Other Addictive Substances by
Province, 2017

TOTAL
RANKIN
NO. PROVINCE SUSPECTS TOTAL
G
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. East Java 15,120 91 15,211 I
2. North Sumatera 7,908 132 8,040 II
3. DKI Jakarta 7,755 47 7,802 III
4. West Java 3,385 65 3,450 IV
5. South Kalimantan 3,009 52 3,061 V
6. East Kalimantan 2,769 60 2,829 VI
7. Lampung 2,561 21 2,582 VII
8. South Sumatera 2,438 61 2,499 VIII
9. Central Java 2,413 51 2,464 IX
10. South Sulawesi 2,226 56 2,282 X
11. Aceh 2,253 22 2,275 XI
12. Riau 1,947 34 1,981 XII
13. Bali 959 49 1,008 XIII
14. West Sumatera 987 13 1,000 XIV
15. Central Kalimantan 906 31 937 XV
16. Banten 747 33 780 XVI
17. Jambi 735 33 768 XVII
18. West Kalimantan 709 37 746 XVIII
19. West Nusa Tenggara 600 9 609 XIX
20. Riau Islands 500 83 583 XX
21. DI Yogyakarta 496 30 526 XXI
22. Central Sulawesi 459 45 504 XXII
23. Police HQ/Central BNN 270 168 438 XXIII
24. Bangka Belitung 384 12 396 XXIV
25. Papua 285 17 302 XXV
26. S.E.Sulawesi 262 25 287 XXVI
27. North Sulawesi 255 13 268 XXVII
28. Bengkulu 229 24 253 XXVIII
29. West Sulawesi 176 25 201 XXIX
30. Maluku 101 17 118 XXX
31. West Papua 108 8 116 XXXI
32. North Maluku 91 17 108 XXXII
33. Gorontalo 51 19 70 XXXIII
34. North Kalimantan - 18 18 XXXIV
35. East Nusa Tenggara 14 1 15 XXXV
TOTAL 63,108 1,419 64,527
Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 133
 Table 3.16. Total Seized Cannabis/Ganja, 2017
TOTAL EVIDENCE
NO. SEIZED EVIDENCE TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5
1. Cannabis Herbs (Gram) 150,785,496 885,400.92 151,670,896.92
2. Cannabis Plants (trees) 205,529 179 205,708.00
3. Cultivation Area (Ha) 72 0 72
4. Cannabis See (Gram) 154.50 3.30 157.80
Cannabis Seedlings 0
5. 5,000 5,000
(Trees)
Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Table 3.17. Total Seized Narcotics Evidence, 2017

TOTAL EVIDENCE
NO. SEIZED EVIDENCE TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5
1. Heroin (Gram) 204.37 256.88 461.25
2. Cocaine (Gram) 68.47 3.49 71.96
3. Hashish (Gram) 33.44 10.74 44.18
4. Ecstasy (Tablet) 2,779,319.75 323,359 3,102,678.75
5. Ecstasy (Gram) 20,909.97 0 20,909.97
6. Shabu (Gram) 6,289,425.36 1,165,347.69 7,454,773.05
7. Codeine (Gram) 0 4 4.00
Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Table 3.18. Total Seized Psychotropic Substances, 2017

TOTAL EVIDENCE
NO. SEIZED EVIDENCE TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5
1. Barbiturates (Tablet)/Table III 264,106.25 0 264,106.25
Benzodiazepines 0
2. 64,962 64,962
(Tablet)/Table IV
3. Happy Five 52,839 0 52,839
4. Ketamine (Gram) 1,817.77 3.18 1,820.95
Controlled Medicines/Hard
5. 15,596,030 641 15,596,671
Drugs (Tablet)
Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Table 3.19. Total Seized Other Addictive Substances, 2017

TOTAL EVIDENCE
NO. SEIZED EVIDENCE TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4 5
1. Alcohol (Bottle) 187,159 0 187,159
2. Alcohol (Liter) 72,310.36 0 72,310.36
Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 134
 Table 3.20. Disclosures of Clandestine Laboratories, 2017

TOTAL DISCLOSURES
NO. SCALE TOTAL
POLICE BNN
1 2 3 4
1. Small 2 3 5
2. Medium - 1 1
3. Large - - -
TOTAL 2 4 6
Source : National Police Republic of Indonesia, March 2018

b. Data of Prominent Cases of Narcotic Crimes by Regional Police, 2017

Table 3.21. Total Prominent Cases, 2017

REGIONAL 2017
NO.
POLICE CASES SUSPECTS EVIDENCE
1 2 3 4 5
1. Riau 1 1 18 Kg Shabu
1 6 480 drums / 12 tons
raw materials (white
powder) contains
Dextromethorphan,
2. Riau Islands
Trihexyphenidyl,
Carisoprodol,
Diazepam and
Cepralin
3. Metro Jaya 1 9 949,159 gram shabu
East 1 1 5,949 gram shabu
4.
Kalimantan
5. Lampung 1 4 10 kg shabu
6. Police HQ 1 2 1.2 juta ecstasy
7. West Java 1 3 1 Kg shabu
1 2 100 kg cannabis/
8. Aceh
ganja
North 1 1 6.5 kg shabu
9.
Sumatera
10. Papua 1 1 54.58 gram shabu
South 1 1 2,020 tableets ecstasy
11
Kalimantan 2,140 kg shabu
1 1 182 gram shabu
12. Central Java
436 ecstasy
TOTAL 12 32
Source : National Police Republic of Indonesia, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 135
 c. Money Laundering Cases Handled by BNN, 2017

Table 3.22. Total Money Laundering Suspects Based on Nationality, 2017

NO. NATIONALITY TOTAL SUSPECTS
1 2 3
1. Indonesians 25
2. Foreigners 0
TOTAL 25
Source : BNN Deputy of Eradication, March 2017

Table 3.23. Total Money Laundering Suspects Based on Gender, 2017

TOTAL
TOTAL
NO. GENDER SUSPECTS
FOREIGNERS
INDONESIANS
1 2 3 4
1. Males 20 0
2. Females 5 0
TOTAL 25 0
Source : BNN Deputy of Eradication, March 2017

Table 3.24. Total Money Laundering Suspects Based on Age Group, 2017

NO. AGE GROUP TOTAL SUSPECTS

1 2 3
1. < 16 Years 0
2. 16 – 19 Years 0
3. 20 – 24 Years 0
4. 25 – 29 Years 1
5. > 30 Years 24
TOTAL 25
Source : BNN Deputy of Eradication, March 2017

Table 3.25. Total Money Laundering Suspects Based on Education, 2017

NO. EDUCATION TOTAL SUSPECTS

1 2 3
1. Elementary 0
2. Junior High School 0
3. Senior High School 25
4. University 0
5. No Schooling 0
6. Drop Out 0
7. Not Registered 0
TOTAL 25
Source : BNN Deputy of Eradication, March 2017

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 136
 Table 3.26. Total Money Laundering Suspects Based on Occupation,
2017
NO. OCCUPATION TOTAL SUSPECTS
1 2 3
1. Govt. Employee/Village Head 0
2. Armed Forces/Police 0
3. Private Sector 22
4. Entrepreneur 1
5. Farmer 0
6. Univ. Student 0
7. Student 1
8. Labour 0
9. No employment/Prisoner/House Assistant 1
TOTAL 25
Source : BNN Deputyof Eradication, March 2017

Table 3.27. Details of Money Laundering Cases, 2017

EVIDENCE
CASH/
NO. LKN SUSPECTS GOODS / NOTE.
ACCOUNT
VALUE (Rp.)
(Rp.)
1 2 3 4 5
Tjia Sun Fen To court
1. LKN/01-TPPU/I/2017/BNN and Andi 2,800,000,000 6,028,000,000 proceedings/
P21
Frankie and Under
2. LKN/14-TPPU/II/2017/BNN Pendi Chandra 0 0 Investigation
3. LKN/20-TPPU/IV2017/BNN Dedi and 113,000,000 2,200,000,000 Under
Herijal Investigation
To Court
4. LKN/24-TPPU/III2017/BNN Saparudin 170,000,000 4,200,000,000 Proceedings
5. LKN/25-TPPU/III2017/BNN Lie Ly Tedjo- 4,502,000,000 3,904,000,000 To Court
koesoemo Proceedings
6. LKN/35-TPPU/IV.2017/BNN Cao Jing 2,400,000,000 21,650,000,000 P21
7. LKN/32-TPPU/IV/2017/BNN Saiful Als 0 2,535,000,000 Phase I
Junet
Angelina &
8. LKN/39-TPPU/V/2017/BNN Haryanto 1,230,000,000 0 P21
Chandra
9. LKN/40-TPPU/VI/2017/BNN Chan Sze Ngai 600,000,000 12,800,000,000 To court
als Calvin proceedings
Ali Akbar als
10. LKN/42-TPPU/VI/2017/BNN Dekgam 0 3,417,900,000 Phase I

11. LKN/52-TPPU/VII/2017/ Suherianto 0 3,235,000,000 Investigation

BNN
Tajul Maulana 1,175,000,000
12. LKN/60-TPPU/IX/2017/BNN als Tajul 0 PhaseI

13. LKN/61-TPPU/IX/2017/BNN Li Wei Gui als 0 1,440,000,000 Phase I

Willy. cs
Irawan als
14. LKN/64-TPPU/IX/2017/BNN Dagot and 86,000,000 2,736,000,000 Investigation
Feny
Lukmanul
15. LKN/66-TPPU/IX/2017/BNN Hakim als 0 14,693,000,000 Investigation
Hendra
16. LKN/66-TPPU/IX/2017/BNN Teddy Fahrizal 1,400,000,000 0 Investigation
17. LKN/68-TPPU/IX/2017/BNN Ibnu Idris 0 1,050,000,000 Investigation
18. LKN/74-TPPU/X/2017/BNN Ajin 0 2,250,000,000 Investigation
LKN/85-TPPU/XI/2017/BNN Fadli als LI als
19. 0 6,685,000,000 Investigation
Abi Sahabudin
TOTAL 13,301,000,000 89,998,900,000
Source : BNN Deputy of Eradication, March 2017

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 137
 d. In-Country and Overseas Illicit Drug Trafficking Routes from National
Police, 2017
1) Overseas.
a) Shabu (Air Route)
(1) Cina – Jakarta
(2) Afrika – Jakarta
(3) Malaysia – Jakarta
(4) Teheran – Jakarta
b) Shabu (Sea Route)
(1) Cina – Jakarta – Batam
(2) Malaysia – Jakarta – Banten
(3) Jakarta – Sumatera – Aceh
c) Ecstasy (Air Route)
(1) Netherlands – Belgium – Jakarta
(2) Netherland – Germany – Jakarta
(3) ChIna – Jakarta
d) Heroin (Air Route)
(1) Bangkok – Medan – Jakarta – Surabaya – Denpasar
(2) Pakistan–Karachi–Kathmandu–Singapore–Pekanbaru–
Jakarta
2) Domestic.
a) Cannabis/Ganja (Air Route)
(1) Aceh – Lampung – Jakarta – Surabaya – Bali – Pontianak-
Samarinda – Balikpapan – Banjarmasin – Manado – Palu-
Makasar – East Nusa Tenggara – West Nusa Tenggara –
Papua
b) Cannabis/Ganja (Land Route)
(1) Aceh – Lampung – Jakarta – Bogor
(2) Aceh – Lampung – Java – Bali
(3) In a private car
c) Shabu (Air Route)
(1) Banyuwangi – Surabaya – Jakarta
(2) Jakarta – Samarinda
(3) Medan – Aceh
(4) Aceh – Jakarta
d) Ecstasy (Air Route)
(1) Makassar – Kupang
(2) Jakarta
e. In-country and Overseas Illicit Drug Trafficking Routes from BNN, 2017.
1) Land Route.
a) Kuching, Malaysia – Bengkayang, West Kalimantan
b) Kuching, Malaysia – Sanggau, West Kalimantan
c) Kuching, Malaysia – Jagoi Babang, West Kalimantan
d) Kuching, Malaysia – Sungai Ambawang, West Kalimantan
e) Kuching, Malaysia – Entikong, West Kalimantan

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 138
 2) Air Route.
a) Malaysia – Jakarta
b) Malaysia – Medan
c) Malaysia – Denpasar
d) Malaysia – Surabaya
e) Malaysia – Lombok
f) Malaysia – Padang
g) Malaysia – Palembang
h) South Africa – Denpasar, Bali
i) Saudi Arab – Jakarta
j) Benin – Jakarta
k) Hongkong – Jakarta
l) Germany – Denpasar
m) Nepal – Jakarta
n) Nigeria – Jakarta
o) Singapore – Jakarta
p) Taiwan – Jakarta
3) By Post/JT Delivery Service.
a) Germany – Jakarta
b) Spanyol – Jakarta
c) Hongkong – Jakarta
d) Natherland – Jakarta
e) Netherland – Denpasar
f) Netherland – Balikpapan, East Kalimantan
g) Belgium – Jakarta
h) Ethiopia – Jakarta
i) Taiwan – Jakarta
j) Hongkong – Jakarta
k) China – Denpasar, Bali
l) China – Surabaya
m) China – Semarang
n) USA – Jakarta
o) Canada – Jakarta
p) Thailand – Jakarta
4) Sea Route.
a) Tawau, Malaysia – Tarakan, North Kalimantan
b) Tawau, Malaysia – Palu
c) Malaysia – Pekanbaru
d) Malaysia – Medan
e) Malaysia – Aceh
f) Malaysia – Batam, Riau Islands
g) Malaysia – Tanjung Balai Karimun, Riau Islands
h) Malaysia – Tanjung Pinang, Riau Islands
i) Malaysia – Dumai, Riau
j) Malaysia – Tanjung Balai Asahan, Riau
k) Malaysia – Jakarta
l) Myanmar – Anyer, Banten
m) Myanmar – Batam, Riau Islands
n) Myanmar – Natuna
o) China – Jakarta
p) China – Lampung
q) China – Medan
r) China – Cikarang

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 139
 e. Ranking and Seizures of Narcotics from Ministry of Finance RI, 2017
Table 3.28. Total Narcotics Seizures at Airports, 2017
NO. SEIZED EVIDENCE 2017 NOTE
1 2 3 4
1. Cannabis/Ganja (Gram) 9,495.40
2. Heroine (Gram) -
3. Cocaine (Gram) 7.49
4. Hashish (Gram) 930.73
Source : Directorate General of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Table 3.29. Total and Ranking of Cannabis Herbs at Airports, 2017

2017
NO. PROVINCE AIRPORT TOTAL NOTE
RANKING
(GRAM)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Banten Soekarno-Hatta 8,941.60 I 13 Cases
2. Bali I Gusti Ngurah Rai 404.80 II 8 Cases
3. East Java Juanda 140.00 III 1 Case
4. West Sumatera Minangkabau 6.00 IV 1 Case
5. North Sumatera Kualanamu 3.00 V 1 Case
TOTAL 9,495.40 24 Cases
Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Table 3.30. Total and Ranking of Cocaine Seizures at Airports, 2017

2017
NO. PROVINCE AIRPORT TOTAL NOTE
RANKING
(GRAM)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Bali I Gusti Ngurah Rai 5.50 I 2 Cases
2. East Java Juanda 1.90 II 1 Case
3. North Sumatera Kualanamu 0.09 III 1 Case
TOTAL 7.49 4 Cases
Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Table 3.31. Total and Ranking of Hashish Seizures at Airports, 2017

2017
NO. PROVINCE AIRPORT TOTAL NOTE
RANKING
(GRAM)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Banten Soekarno-Hatta 898.20 I 2 Cases
2. Bali I Gusti Ngurah Rai 32.53 II 1 Case
TOTAL 930.73
Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 140
 Table 3.32. Total Synthetic Narcotic Seizures at Airports, 2017
NO. SEIZED EVIDENCE 2017
1 2 3
1. Ecstasy (Gram) 520,164.50
2. Shabu (Gram) 88,311.52
Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Table 3.33. Total and Ranking of Ecstasy Seizures at Airports, 2017

2017
NO. PROVINCE AIRPORTS TOTAL NOTE
RANKING
(GRAM)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Banten Soekarno-Hatta 520,004.00 I 3 Cases
2. Riau Islands Hang Nadim 148.00 II 1 Case
3. Bali I Gusti Ngurah Rai 12.00 III 2 Cases
4. North Sumatera Kualanamu 0.50 IV 1 Case
TOTAL 520,164.50 7 Cases
Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Table 3.34. Total and Ranking of Shabu Seizures at Airports, 2017

2017
NO. PROVINCE AIRPORTS TOTAL NOTE
RANKING
(GRAM)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Banten Soekarno-Hatta 42,587.80 I 43 Cases
2. Bali I Gusti Ngurah Rai 15,753.81 II 8 Cases
3. Riau Islands Hang Nadim 12,433.00 III 17 Cases
4. East Java Juanda 9,595.00 IV 12 Cases
5. South Sumatera Sultan MB II 4,489.00 V 2 Cases
West Nusa Lombok
6. 1,923.10 VI 3 Cases
Tenggara
7. Jambi Sultan Thaha 1,000.00 VII 1 Case
8. North Sumatera Kualanamu 529.00 VII 4 Cases
9. West Kalimantan Supadio 0.81 IX 1 Case
TOTAL 88,311.52 91 Cases
Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Table 3.35. Total Narcotic Seizures at Ferry Sea Ports, 2017

NO. SEIZED EVIDENCE 2017 NOTE
1 2 3 4
1. Cannabis Herbs (Gram) 330,014.89
2. Heroin (Gram) 9.15
3. Ecstasy (Tablet) 121.00
4. Shabu (Gram) 88,311.52
Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 141
 Table 3.36. Total and Ranking of Cannabis Seizures at Sea Ports, 2017
2017
NO. PROVINCE SEA PORTS TOTAL NOTE
RANKING
(GRAM)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. DKI Jakarta Tanjung Priok 330,000.00 I 1 Case
2. Riau Islands Batam Center 10.00 II 1 Case
3. Riau Islands Tanjung Balai Karimun 4.89 III 3 Cases
TOTAL 330,014.89 5 Cases
Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Table 3.37. Total and Ranking of Heroin Seizures at Sea Ports, 2017
2017
NO. PROVINCE SEA PORT TOTAL NOTE
RANKING
(TABLET)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Riau Islands Tanjung Balai Karimun 9.15 1 Case
TOTAL 9.15 1 Case
Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Table 3.38. Total and Ranking of Ecstasy Seizures at Sea Ports, 2017
2017
NO. PROVINCE SEA PORT TOTAL NOTE
RANKING
(TABLET)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Riau Islands Batam Center 121.00 5 Cases
TOTAL 121.00 5 Cases
Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Table 3.39. Total and Ranking of Shabu Seizures at Sea Ports, 2017
2017
NO. PROVINCE SEAPORT TOTAL RAN- NOTE
(GRAM) KING
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. DKI Jakarta Tanjung Priok 84,542.00 I 2 Cases
North Aji Putri 163.70 1 Case
2. VII
Kalimantan Tunontaka 702.46 3 Cases
Batam Center 1,791.00 13 Cases
3. Riau Islands VI
Harbour Bay 73.00 1 Case
4. Lampung Panjang 84,000.00 II 1 Case
5. DKI Jakarta Perikanan Muara Angke 13,560.00 III 1 Case
6. Jambi Marina-Kuala Tungkal 10,100.00 IV 2 Cases
South
7. Nusantara-Parepare 2,300.00 V 1 Case
Sulawesi
8. Riau Islands Tanjung Balai Karimun 534.74 VIII 3 Cases
9. Riau Islands Sri Bintan Pura 209.00 IX 1 Case
TOTAL 88,311.52 91 Cases
Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 142
 Table 3.40. Total Narcotics Seizures at Border Crossing, 2017

NO. SEIZED EVIDENCE 2017 NOTE

1 2 3 4
1. Cannabis Herbs (Gram) 135.00

2. Shabu (Gram) 81,571.00

Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Table 3.41. Total Cannabis Seizures at Border Crossing, 2017

2017
BORDER
NO. PROVINCE TOTAL NOTE
CROSSING RANKING
(GRAM)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Papua Skow-Wutung 135.00 3 Cases
TOTAL 135.00 3 Cases

Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Table 3.42. Total and Ranking of Shabu Seizures at Border Crossing, 2017

2017
BORDER
NO. PROVINCE TOTAL NOTE
CROSSING RANKING
(GRAM)
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. West
Entikong 81.571.00 7 Cases
Kalimantan
TOTAL 81.571.00 7 Cases

Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Table 3.43. Total Narcotics Suspects Based on Nationality, 2017

TOTAL SUSPECTS
NO. NATIONALITY
2017
1 2 3
1. South Africa 2
2. United States 2
3. Saudi Arabia 1
4. Australia 3
5. Bangladesh 3

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 143
 1 2 3
6. Benin 1

7. China 5

8. Ethiopia 2

9. Ghana 1

10. Indonesia 189

11. Jepang 2

12. Germany 2

13. Kenya 2

14. Malaysia 35

15. Egypt 1

16. Nigeria 4

17. Ivory Coast 1

18. Papua New Guinea 3

19. France 1

20. Republic Mozambique 1

21. Rusia 2

22. Singapore 2

23. Taiwan 5

24. Tanzania 1
TOTAL 271
Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Table 3.44.Total Narcotics Suspects Based on Gender, 2017

NO. GENDER TOTAL SUSPECTS

1 2 3
1. Males 226
2. Females 45
TOTAL 271
Source : Directorate of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 144
 f. Prisoners and Detainees of Drug Cases all over Indonesia from Ministry
of Justice and Human Rights, 2017

Table 3.45. Total Prisoners and Detainees of Drug Cases all over Indonesia by
Province in December, 2017

TOTAL PRISONERS &

NO. REGIONAL OFFICE
DETAINEES
1 2 3
1. Aceh 2,921
2. Bali 1,521
3. Bangka Belitung 922
4. Banten 3,477
5. Bengkulu 550
6. DI Yogyakarta 298
7. DKI Jakarta 11,067
8. Gorontalo 104
9. Jambi 1,597
10. West Java 9,798
11. Central Java 4,274
12. East Java 9,575
13. West Kalimantan 1,629
14. South Kalimantan 4,626
15. Central Kalimantan 1,120
16. East Kalimantan 6,638
17. Riau Islands 2,538
18. Lampung 3,670
19. Maluku 158
20. North Maluku 7
21. West Nusa Tenggara 281
22. East Nusa Tenggara 39
23. Papua 52
24. West Papua 18
25. Riau 3,944
26. West Sulawesi 164
27. South Sulawesi 3,375
28. Central Sulawesi 211
29. S.E. Sulawesi 417
30. North Sulawesi 168
31. West Sumatera 1,154
32. South Sumatera 3,617
33. North Sumatera 11,631
TOTAL 91,561
Source : Directorate General of Correctional Institutions, Minister of Justice and Human Rights
RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 145
 Table 3.46. Total Prisoners and Detainees of Drug Cases All Over Indonesia by
Province Based on Group of Drug Syndicates/Dealers and Users in
December 2017

DRUG CASES
DRUG
NO. REGIONAL OFFICE TOTAL
SYNDICATE/ DRUG USER
DEALER
1 2 3 4 5
1. Aceh 1,701 1,220 2,921
2. Bali 1,011 510 1,521
3. Bangka Belitung 761 161 922
4. Banten 1,477 2,000 3,477
5. Bengkulu 423 127 550
6. DI Yogyakarta 168 130 298
7. DKI Jakarta 4,646 6,421 11,067
8. Gorontalo 0 104 104
9. Jambi 1,253 344 1,597
10. West Java 6,152 3,646 9,798
11. Central Java 3,270 1,004 4,274
12. East Java 4,811 4,764 9,575
13. West Kalimantan 664 965 1,629
14. South Kalimantan 3,855 771 4,626
15. Central Kalimantan 692 428 1,120
16. East Kalimantan 5,804 834 6,638
17. Riau Islands 2,103 435 2,538
18. Lampung 2,300 1,370 3,670
19. Maluku 29 129 158
20. North Maluku 3 4 7
21. West Nusa Tenggara 206 75 281
22. East Nusa Tenggara 4 35 39
23. Papua 36 16 52
24. West Papua 18 0 18
25. Riau 2,909 1,035 3,944
26. West Sulawesi 119 45 164
27. South Sulawesi 1,731 1,644 3,375
28. Central Sulawesi 0 211 211
29. S.E.Sulawesi 253 164 417
30. North Sulawesi 102 66 168
31. West Sumatera 696 458 1,154
32. South Sumatera 2,697 920 3,617
33. North Sumatera 7,372 4,259 11,631
TOTAL 57,266 34,295 91,561

Source : Directorate General of Correctional Institutions. Ministry of Justice & Human RI,
March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 146
 Table 3.47. Total Prisoners and Detainees in Special Narcotics Prisons all over
Indonesia, 2017
ISI %
REGIONAL CAPA
NO. WORK UNIT PRISON DETAIN CAPA
OFFICE TOTAL CITY
ERS EES CITY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Class II A Narcotics
West Java 359 906 1,265 793 160
Prison Bandung
2. Class II A Narcotics
Papua 98 270 368 308 119
Prison Jayapura
3. Class II A Narotics
East Java 16 690 706 854 83
Prison Madiun
4. Class II A Narcotics
Prison Nusakam- Central Java 0 446 446 245 182
bangan
5. Class II A Narcotics South
13 804 817 368 222
Prison Sungguminasa Sulawesi
6. Class II A Narcotics
Riau Islands 2 499 501 620 81
Prison Tanjung Pinang
7. Class III Narcotics North
10 856 866 915 95
Prison Langkat Sumatera
8. Class III Narcotics
Jambi 62 353 415 362 115
Prison Muara Sabak
9. Class II A Narcotics
Prison Bandar Lampung 0 1,048 1,048 168 624
Lampung
10. Class II A Narcotics
DKI Jakarta 125 2,539 2,664 1,084 246
Prison Cipinang
11. Class II A Narcotics
West Java 0 869 869 455 191
Prison Cirebon
12. Class II A Narcotics South
0 1,226 1,226 800 153
Prison Karang Intan Kalimantan
13. Class II A Narcotics South
101 644 745 289 258
Prison Lubuk Linggau Sumatera
14. Class II A Narcotics
East Java 0 709 709 1,234 57
Prison Pamekasan
15. Class II A Narcotics North
0 698 698 420 166
Pematang Siantar Sumatera
16. Class II A Narcotics DI
45 222 267 565 47
Prison Yogyakarta Yogyakarta
17. Class III Narcotics Central
41 311 352 200 176
Prison Kasongan Kalimantan
18. Class III Narcotics
Aceh 2 387 389 800 49
Prison Langsa
19. Class III Narcotics Bangka
85 651 736 450 164
Prison Pangkal Pinang Belitung
20. Class III Narcotics East
0 1,358 1,358 352 386
Prison Samarinda Kalimantan
21. Class II A Narcotics
Bali 0 249 249 468 53
Prison Bangli
22. Class III Narcotics West
0 58 58 210 28
Prison Sawahlunto Sumatera
23. Class III Narcotics South
0 777 777 484 161
Prison Palembang Sumatera
TOTAL 959 16,570 17,529 12,444
Source : Directorate General of Correctional Institutions Ministry of Justice and Human Rights
RI. March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 147
 Table 3.48. Total Death Row Prisoners of Special Narcotics Crimes All over
Indonesia, 2017
REGIONAL TECHNICAL
NO. TOTAL NATIONALITY TOTAL
OFFICE IMPLEMENTATION UNIT
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Bali Women Prison Denpasar 1 England 1
2. Banten Class IPrison Tangerang 6 Indonesia 2
England 1
Malaysia 1
Nigeria 1
Taiwan 1
Class II A Women Prison 1 Indonesia
1
Tangerang
3. DI Yogyakarta Women Prison 1 Phillipines
1
Yogyakarta
4. DKI Jakarta Class I Prison Cipinang 7 Hongkong 1
Indonesia 3
Malaysia 3
Class II A Narcotics 1 Indonesia
1
Prison Jakarta
5. West Java Class I Prison Cirebon 3 Indonesia 1
Iran 2
Class III Prison Gunung 1 Indonesia
1
Sindur
6. Central Java Class I Prison Semarang 1 Pakistan 1
Class II A Prison Besi 4 Indonesia 1
Nusakambangan Malaysia 1
Nigeria 1
Zimbabwe 1
Class II A Prison 4 Indonesia 2
Kembang Kuning Nigeria 1
Nusakambangan Zimbabwe 1
Class II A Prison Perisan 1 China
1
Nusakambangan
Class II A Prison 2 China
2
Purwokerto
Class II B Prison Cilacap 1 Indonesia 1
7. East Java Class I Prison Surabaya 1 Nigeria 1
8. West Class II A Prison 1 Malaysia
1
Kalimantan Pontianak
9. Kepulauan Class II A Prison Batam 3 Malaysia 2
Riau Singapore 1
10. Lampung Class I Prison Bandar 2 Indonesia 1
Lampung Malaysia 1
11. South Class I Prison Ujung 2 Indonesia
2
Sulawesi Pandang
12. North Class I Prison Medan 1 Malaysia
1
Sumatera
TOTAL 44 44
Source : Directorate General of Correctional Institutions Ministry of Justice & Human Rights RI,
March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 148
 g. Detainees of Narcotics all over Indonesia from BNN, 2017

Table 3.49. Total Detainees of Narcotics Cases Based on Nationality, 2017

NO. NATIONALITY TOTAL DETAINEES

1 2 3
1. Indonesia 176
2. Hongkong 1
3. India 1
TOTAL 178
Source : BNN Deputy of Eradication, March 2018

Table 3.50. Total Detainees of Narcotics Cases Bsed on Gender, 2017

NO. GENDER TOTAL DETAINEES

1 2 3
1. Males 167
2. Females 11
TOTAL 178

Source : BNN Deputy of Eradication, March 2018

Table 3.51. Total Detainees of Narcotics Cases Based on Age Group, 2017

NO. AGE GROUP TOTAL DETAINEES

1 2 3
1. < 16 Years 0

2. 16 – 20 Years 3

3. 21 – 25 Years 12

4. 26 – 30 Years 33

5. 31 – 35 Years 40

6. 36 – 40 Years 35

7. 41 – 45 Years 28

8. 46 – 50 Years 17

9. > 50 Years 8

10 Not known 2
TOTAL 178
Source : BNN Deputy of Eradication, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 149
 i. Total Settled Cases Related to Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances,
Death convicted Foreigners and Indonesians of Narcotics and
Psychotropic Substances Cases, and Executed Death Convicted Prisoners
from Attorney General Office RI, by Province 2017
Table 3.52. Total Settled Narcotics Cases by Province, 2017

NO. PROVINCE SETTLED NARCOTICS CASS

1 2 3
1. Aceh 744
2. North Sumatera 3,927
3. West Sumatera 416
4. Riau 733
5. Jambi 351
6. South Sumatera 1,307
7. Bengkulu 330
8. Lampung 987
9. DKI Jakarta 2,291
10. West Java 2,615
11. Central Java 586
12. D.I. Yogyakarta 97
13. East Java 2,825
14. West Kalimantan 337
15. Central Kalimantan 244
16. South Kalimantans 636
17. East Kalimantan 1,986
18. North Sulawesi 5
19. Central Sulawesi 221
20. S.E. Sulawesi 160
21. South Sulawesi 1,075
22. Bali 765
23. West Nusa Tenggara 118
24. East Nusa Tenggara 9
25. Maluku 2
26. Papua 47
27. North Maluku 2
28. Banten 1,371
29. Bangka Belitung 228
30. Gorontalo 15
31. Riau Islands 101
TOTAL 24,531
Source : Attorney General Office Republic of Indonesia, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 150
 Table 3.53. Total Death Row Indonesians and Foreigners of Narcotics and
Psychotropic Substances Cases, 2017

NO. NATIONALITY TOTAL CONVICTED NOTE

1 2 3 4

1. Indonesia 25

2. Sinegal 1

3. Nigeria 8

4. Malaysia 5

5. Zimbabwe 1

6. Philippines 1

7. South Africa 2

8. Australia 1

9. Iran 3

10. Pakistan 1

11. India 1

12. China 7

13. France 1

14. England 1

15. Taiwan 4

16. West Africa 1

TOTAL 63

Source : Attorney General Ofice Republic of Indonesia, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 151
 j. Tested Evidence Related to Narcotics, Psychotropic Substances and
Other Addictive Substances, from National Agency of Drugs and Food
Control

Table 3.54. Recapitulation of Tested Narcotics Evidence from Narcotics Crimes,

2017
T TESTED EVIDENCE
T NARCOTICS
L
C
C C T
H A NEG
S O O ME- O
BALAI BESAR/ E N M ATIV
NO. A D C TAM T
BALAI POM R N D E
M E A PHE- A
O A M NAR-
P I I TAM L
I B A CO-
L N N INE
N I TICS
E E E
S
S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. BBPOM Jakarta 0 - - - - - - - 0
2. BBPOM Banda Aceh 0 - - - - - - - 0
3. BBPOM Bandar
54 - - - 10 42 2 - 54
Lampung
4. BBPOM Bandung 629 - - - 143 249 18 - 410
5. BBPOM
1,614 - - - - 661 58 - 719
BanjaRestaurantasin
6. BBPOM Denpasar 0 - - - - - - - 0
7. BBPOM Jayapura 168 - - - 132 35 1 - 168
8. BBPOM Makassar 0 - - - - - - - 0
9. BBPOM Manado 10 - - - - 7 - - 7
10. BBPOM Mataram 316 - - 1 44 260 6 - 311
11. BBPOM Medan 0 - - - - - - - 0
12. BBPOM Padang 635 - - - 200 427 8 - 635
13. BBPOM Palembang 0 - - - - - - - 0
14. BBPOM Pekanbaru 0 - - - - - - - 0
15. BBPOM Pontianak 679 - - - 8 606 63 - 677
16. BBPOM Samarinda 345 - - - 7 282 5 - 294
17. BBPOM Semarang 0 - - - - - - - 0
18. BBPOM Surabaya 0 - - - - - - - 0
19. BBPOM Yogyakarta 0 - - - - - - - 0
20. BPOM Ambon 53 - - - 14 32 - - 46
21. BPOM Bengkulu 281 - - - 93 188 - - 281
22. BPOM Jambi 748 - - - 75 614 58 - 747
23. BPOM Gorontalo 80 - - - - 73 1 - 74
24. BPOM Kendari 0 - - - - - - - 0
25. BPOM Kupang 0 - - - - - - - 0
26. BPOM Palangkaraya 269 - - - - 138 5 - 143
27. BPOM Palu 75 - - - - 65 - - 65
28. BPOM Batam 0 - - - - - - - 0
29. BPOM Pangkal Pinang 0 - - - - - - - 0
30. BPOM Serang 0 - - - - - - - 0
31. BPOM Manokwari 0 - - - - - - - 0
TOTAL 5,956 0 0 1 491 2,430 166 0 4,631
Source : National Agency of Drugs and Food Control (POM), March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 152
 Table 3.55. Recapitulation of Tested Evidence Related to Psychotropic
Substances Crimes, 2017
T TESTED EVIDENCE
T
L PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES

S NEGA-
BALAI BESAR/
NO. A TIVE TTL
BALAI POM FLU- NIME-
M ALPRA- DIA- PSYCHO-
P NITRA- TAZE-
ZOLAM ZEPAM TRO-
L ZEPAM PAM
PICA
E SUBST.
S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. BBPOM Jakarta 0 - - - - - 0
2. BBPOM Banda Aceh 0 - - - - - 0
3. BBPOM Bandar
54 - - - - - 0
Lampung
4. BBPOM Bandung 629 41 4 - - - 45
5. BBPOM Banjarmasin 1,614 1 5 - - - 6
6. BBPOM Denpasar 0 - - - - - 0
7. BBPOM Jayapura 168 - - - - - 0
8. BBPOM Makassar 0 - - - - - 0
9. BBPOM Manado 10 - - - - - 0
10. BBPOM Mataram 316 - - - - - 0
11. BBPOM Medan 0 - - - - - 0
12. BBPOM Padang 635 - - - - - 0
13. BBPOM Palembang 0 - - - - - 0
14. BBPOM Pekanbaru 0 - - - - - 0
15. BBPOM Pontianak 679 - - - - - 0
16. BBPOM Samarinda 345 - - - - - 0
17. BBPOM Semarang 0 - - - - - 0
18. BBPOM Surabaya 0 - - - - - 0
19. BBPOM Yogyakarta 0 - - - - - 0
20. BPOM Ambon 53 - - - - - 0
21. BPOM Bengkulu 281 - - - - - 0
22. BPOM Jambi 748 - - - - - 1
23. BPOM Gorontalo 80 - - - - - 0
24. BPOM Kendari 0 - - - - - 0
25. BPOM Kupang 0 - - - - - 0
26. BPOM Palangkaraya 269 - - - - - 0
27. BPOM Palu 75 - - - - - 0
28. BPOM Batam 0 - - - - - 0
29. BPOM Pangkal Pinang 0 - - - - - 0
30. BPOM Serang 0 - - - - - 0
31. BPOM Manokwari 0 - - - - - 0
TOTAL 5,956 0 5 0 0 0 52

Source : National Agency of Drugs and Food Control (POM), March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 153
 Table 3.56. Recapitulation of Tested Evidence Related to Crimes of Other
Addictive Substances, 2017
T TESTED EVIDENCE
T
L ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES

S
BALAI BESAR/ DEK-
NO. A TRI- CARI- TTL
BALAI POM PARA STRO TRA-
M HEK- SOP- KETA-
P CETA ME- MA-
SIFE- RO- MINE
L MOL TOR- DOL
NIDIL DOL
E PHAN
S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. BBPOM Jakarta 0 - - - - - - 0
2. BBPOM Banda Aceh 0 - - - - - - 0
3. BBPOM Bandar
54 - - - - - - 0
Lampung
4. BBPOM Bandung 629 - 54 30 - 64 - 154
5. BBPOM Banjamasin 1,614 756(*) 17 116 756(*) - - 889
6. BBPOM Denpasar 0 - - - - - - 0
7. BBPOM Jayapura 168 - - - - - - 0
8. BBPOM Makassar 0 - - - - - - 0
9. BBPOM Manado 10 - 3 - - - - 3
10. BBPOM Mataram 316 - 1 - - 4 5
11. BBPOM Medan 0 - - - - - - 0
12. BBPOM Padang 635 - - - - - - 0
13. BBPOM Palembang 0 - - - - - - 0
14. BBPOM Pekanbaru 0 - - - - - - 0
15. BBPOM Pontianak 679 - - - - 1 1 2
16. BBPOM Samarinda 345 3(*) 48 - 3(*) - - 51
17. BBPOM Semarang 0 - - - - - - 0
18. BBPOM Surabaya 0 - - - - - - 0
19. BBPOM Yogyakarta 0 - - - - - - 0
20. BPOM Ambon 53 3(*) - 4 3(*) - - 7
21. BPOM Bengkulu 281 - - - - - - 0
22. BPOM Jambi 748 - - - - - - 0
23. BPOM Gorontalo 80 - 6 - - - - 6
24. BPOM Kendari 0 - - - - - - 0
25. BPOM Kupang 0 - - - - - - 0
26. BPOM Palangkaraya 269 - - 9 113 - - 126
27. BPOM Palu 75 - 10 - - - - 10
28. BPOM Batam 0 - - - - - - 0
29. BPOM Pangkal Pinang 0 - - - - - - 0
30. BPOM Serang 0 - - - - - - 0
31. BPOM Manokwari 0 - - - - - - 0
TOTAL 5,956 0 112 131 589 69 1 1,253
Source : National Agency of Drugsand Food Control, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 154
 k. Recommendations for Non Pharmaceutical Precursors Issued by BNN,
2017.
Table 3.57. Total Issued Recommendations for Non Pharmaceutical
Precursors, 2017
IMPORT/
TYPE OF
NO. COMPANY PRECURSOR EXPORT
REQUEST
PURPOSE
1 2 3 4 5
1. PT. Sinar Kimia SPI Pottasium 2.25 MT
Utama Permanganate (PK)
2. PT. Itochu SPI Toluene 9,000 Ton
Indonesia Hydrochloric Acid 8,500 Ton
Methyl Ethyl 3,000 Ton
Ketone
Acetone 3,000 Ton
Dietil Ether 40 Ton
3. PT. Sinar Berkat IT Extension
Anugerah
4. PT. Merck SPI Acetat Anhidrida 1,200 Liter
Chemicals and Acetone
Life Sciences Antrinilat Acid and 30,000 Liter
its Salts 10 Kg
Dietil Ether
Butanon (Etil Metil 35,000 Liter
Ketone) 1,000 Liter
Hidrogen Klorida 90,000 Liter
(Chloric acid)
Fenilasetat Acid 20 Kg
and its Salts
Piperidina and its 20 Kg
Salts 20 Liter
Kalium 700 Kg
Permanganate 300 Liter
Sukphuric acid 120 Kg
75,000 Liter
Tolene 18,000 Liter
5. PT. Indochemicals SPI Toluene 46,000 MT
Methyl Ethyl 13,000 MT
Ketone
Acetone 7,000 MT
6. PT. Rukun SPI Pottasium 67.5 MT
Persada Makmur Permanganate (PK)
7. PT. Polymark Appointment as
Reaindo Plus IT
8. PT. Nagase Impor- SPI Hydrochloric Acid 1600 Kg
Ekspor Indonesia (HCL) 36%
9. PT. Jatika Nusa SPI Potassium 80,000 Kg
Permanganate
Piperonal 10,000 Kg

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 155
 1 2 3 4 5
10. PT. Asahimas SPE Hydrochloric Acid 24,155 MT
Chemical (HCL) 33%
11. PT. AIK Moh SPI Acetone 47 Ton
Chemicals Toluene 21 Ton
Indonesia Hydrochloric Acid 24 Ton
12. PT. EDF System SPI Butanone (MEK) 1,974 Liter
Integration
13. PT. Marga Cipta SPI Methyl Ethyl 250 MT
Selaras Ketone
Acetone 250 MT
Toluene 250 MT
14. PT. Asahimas SPE Hydrochloric Acid 24,155 MT
Chemical 33%
15. PT. Wasindo Appointment as
Panca Mitra IT
16. PT. Udaya SPI Toluene 8,000 Liter
Anugerah Abadi Methyl Ethyl 2,000 Liter
Ketone
Acetone 1,000 Liter
17. PT. Indofa Utama IT Extension
Multicore
18. PT. Sari Sarana SPI Acetone 600 MT
Kimiatama MEK 3,000 MT
Toluene 6,000 MT
19. PT. PKG Lautan SPI Toluene 6,000 Ton
Indonesia Acetone 2,000 Ton
MEK 2,000 Ton
20. PT. Prochem SPI Hydrochloric Acid 57,600 Kgs
Tritama Acetone 15,360 Kgs
21. PT. Samchem SPI Methyl Ethyl 1,000 MT
Prasandha Ketone
Acetone 240 MT
Toluene 2,000 MT
22. PT. Nagase Impor- SPI Hydrochloric Acid 1,600 Kg
Ekspor Indonesia (HCL) 36%
23. PT. Sinar Kimia Change of
Utama API-U
24. PT. Asahimas PEN Hydrochloric Acid 24,155 MT
Chemical 33%
25. PT. AKR SPI Asam Sulfat 17,000 MT
Corporindo Tbk (Sulfuric Acid)
26. PT. Megasetia IT Extension
Agung Kimia
27. PT. Itochu SPI Toluene 9,000 Ton
Indonesia Hydrochloric Acid 8,500 Ton
3,000 Ton
Methyl Ethyl 3,000 Ton
Ketone
Acetone 3,000 Ton
Dietil Ether 40 Ton
28. PT. Mulya Adhi SPI Acetone 6,000 MT
Paramita Methyl Ethyl 7,000 MT
Ketone
Toluene 22,000 MT

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 156
 1 2 3 4 5
29. PT. Jatika Nusa SPI Potassium 80,000 Kg
Permanganate
Piperonal 10,000 Kg
30. PT. Printechnindo SPI Methyl Ethyl 17,300 liter
Raya Utama Ketone
31. PT. Asahimas PEN HCL 33 % 22,601 MT
Chemical
32. PT. Sinarkimia SPI Potassium 900 MT
Utama Permanganate
33. PT. Halim Sakti IT Extension
Pratama
34. PT. Makro Jaya IT Extension
35. PT. ELang Kurnia IT Extension
Sakti
36. PT. Murni Appointment as
DhaRestauranta IT
Karya
37. PT. Utama Plaspak Appointment as
Inker IT
38. PT. Wiriawan Penunjukkan
Ingenious sebagai IT
39. PT. Asahimas SPI Hydrochloric Acid 8,800 MT
Chemical 33%
40. PT. Printechnindo Change of SIUP
Raya Utama
41. PT. Indochemical SPI Toluene 43,000 MT
Citra Kimia Methyl Ethyl 16,000 MT
Ketone
Acetone 8,000 MT
42. PT. EDF System SPI Butanone (MEK) 1,974 liter
Integration
43. PT. Halim Sakti SPI Potassium 22.50 MT
Pratama Permanganate BP
2000
44. PT. Marga Cipta SPI Methyl Ethyl 250 MT
Selaras Ketone
Acetone 250 MT
Toluene 1,000 MT
45. PT. Multiredjeki SPI Hydrochloric Acid 7,500 liter
Kita Sulphuric Acid 5,000 liter
Acetone 2,240 liter
46. PT. Merck IT Extension
Chemicals and
Life Sciences
47. PT. Prochem IT Extension
Tritama
48. PT. Elang Kurnia SPI Hydrochloric Acid 34,000 Kg
Sakti (KOREA)
49. PT. Itochu SPI Toluene 9,000 Ton
Indonesia Hydrochloric Acid 8,500 Ton
Methyl Ethyl 3,000 Ton
Ketone 3,000 Ton
Acetone 3,000 Ton
Dietil Ether 40 Ton

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 157
 1 2 3 4 5
50. PT. Asahimas PEN Hydrochloric Acid 2,200 MT
Chemical 33%
51. PT. PKG Lautan IT Extension
Indonesia
52. PT. Panda Mas Appointment as
Kimia Abadi IT
53. PT. Samchem SPI Methyl Ethyl 1,000 MT
Prasandha Ketone
Acetone 240 MT
Toluene 2,000 MT
54. PT. Megasetia Appointment as
Agung Kimia IT
55. PT. Mega Appointment as
Kemiraya IT
56. PT. PKG Lautan SPI Toluene 6,000 MT
Indonesia Acetone 2,000 MT
Methyl Ethyl 2,000 MT
Ketone
57. PT. Karunia SPI Acetone 2,400 liter
Jasindo Toluene 1,250 liter
Hydrochloric Acid 2,025 liter
Sulhuric acid 2,025 liter
Potassium 55 Kgm
Permanganate 50 liter
2-Butanone (MEK) 2 liter
58. PT. Udaya SPI Toluene 8,000 MT
Anugerah Abadi Methyl Ethyl 2,000 MT
Ketone
Acetone 1,000 MT
59. PT. Nagase Impor- SPI Hydrochloric Acid 1,600 Kg
Ekspor Indonesia
60. PT. Fanindo IT Extension
Chiptronic
61. PT. Merck SPI Acetat Anhidrida 1,200 liter
Chemicals and Acetone
Life Sciences Antrinilat Acid and 30,000 liter
its Salts 10 Kg
Dietil Ether
Butanon (Etil Metil 35,000 liter
Ketone) 1,000 liter
Hidrogen Klorida 90,100 liter
(Chloric Acid) 20 Kg
Fenilasetat acid
and its Salts
Piperidina and its 720 Kg
Salts 20 liter
Kalium 700 Kg
Permanganate 300 liter
700 Ampul
Asam Sulfat 120 Kg
75,000 liter
900 Ampul
Toluene 24,000 liter

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 158
 1 2 3 4 5
62. PT. Jatika Nusa SPI Potassium 40,000 Kg
Permanganate
Piperonal 10,000 Kg
63. PT. Halim Sakti SPI Potassium 22.50 MT
Pratama Permanganate BP
2000
64. PT. Mulya Adhi SPI Acetone 6,000 MT
Paramita Methyl Ethyl 7,000 MT
Ketone
Toluene 20,000 MT
Source : BNN Deputy of Eradication, March 2018
Keterangan :
1. SPI : Import License
2. SPE : Export License
3. PEN : Pre Export Notification
4. Appointment as IT : Recommendation for Appointment as Registered Importer of
Non-Pharmaceuticals
5. Extention of
Appointment as IT : Recommendation for Extention of Appointment as Registered
Importer of Precursors

l. Laboratory Tested Drug Samples, in 2017, and List of NPS and its
Derivatives in Circulation from BNN

Table 3.58. Total Laboratory Tested Drug Samples at BNN, 2017

PSYCHOTRO-
NARCOTICS PRECURSORS NPS NEGATATIVE
PIC SUBST
NO. MONTH RAW RAW RAW RAW RAW TTL
URI- URI- URI- URI- URI-
MATE- MA- MA- MA- MA-
NE NE NE NE NE
RIAL TERIAL TERIAL TERIAL TERIAL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Januariy 1,420 132 3 0 0 0 5 0 4 38 1,602
2. February 1,812 170 6 0 0 0 1 0 14 68 2,071
3. March 1,437 146 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 46 1,653
4. April 1,852 194 15 0 1 0 1 0 30 100 2,193
5. May 1,240 86 7 0 0 0 0 0 18 63 1,414
6. June 1,404 132 12 0 0 0 0 0 24 25 1,597
7. July 772 50 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 16 843
8. August 1,691 144 5 0 11 0 0 0 14 48 1,913
9. September 1,492 134 3 0 0 0 1 0 47 36 1,713
10. October 1,677 119 3 0 2 0 6 0 97 83 1,987
11. November 1,572 160 8 0 0 0 8 0 28 50 1,826
12. December 1,234 134 7 0 0 0 0 0 26 43 1,444
TOTAL 17,603 1,601 83 0 14 0 24 0 315 616 20,256

Source : BNN Drug Testing Laboratory, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 159
 Table 3.59. NPS and Its Derivatives Circulating in Indonesia.
GENERAL
NO. CHEMICAL NAME ( IUPAC) EFEFECT TYPE
NAME
1 2 3 4 5
Controlled by Minister of Health Regulation No. 2 of 2017 in its Attachment
1. 2-methylamino-1-(3.4- Stimulant, Methylone Derivative of
methylenedioxyphenyl)propan-1-one hallucinogen, insomnia (MDMC) Cathinone
and Sympathomimetic
2. (RS)-2-methylamino-1-(4- StimulaEast Nusa Mephedrone Derivative of
methylpenhyl)propan-1-one Tenggara/NTT, increase (4-MMC) Cathinone
heart rate and harmful
3. (±)-1-phenyl-2-(methylamino)pentan-1- Psycho Stimulant East Pentedrone Derivative of
one Nusa Tenggara/NTT Cathinone
4. (RS)-2-ethylamino-1-(4- Stimulant East Nusa 4-MEC Derivative of
methylphenyl)propan-1-one Tenggara/NTT with Cathinone
empathogenic effect
5. (RS)-1-(benzo[d][1.3]dioxol-5-yl)-2- Euphoria, stimulant, MDPV Derivative of
(pyrrolidin-1-yl)pentan-1-one aphrodisiac effect and Cathinone
empathogenic effect
6. (RS)-2-ethylamino-1-phenyl-propan-1- Psycho Stimulant Ethcathinone Derivative of
one (N-ethyl- Cathinone
cathinone)
7. (RS)-1-(4-methylphenyl)-2-(1- Psycho Stimulant MPHP Derivative of
pyrrolidinyl)-1-hexanone Cathinone
8. (1-pentyl-1H-indol-3-yl)-1- Hallucinogen, effect JWH-018 Synthetic
naphthalenyl-methanone cannabinoid and toxic Cannabinoid
9. (1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indol-3- Hallucinogen, XLR-11 Synthetic
yl)2.2.3.3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)- cannabinoid effect and Cannabinoid
methanone toxic
10. N.N-2-dimethyl-1-phenylpropan-2- Stimulant, lesser effect DMA Derivative of
amine than methamphe- (Dimethyl- Phenethylamine
tamine ampheta-
mine)
11. 5-(2-aminopropyl)benzofuran Stimulant. 5-APB Derivative of
empathogenic Phenethylamine
12. 6-(2-aminopropyl)benzofuran Euphoria 6-APB Derivative of
Phenethylamine
13. 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)-N-methyl- Stimulant, PMMA Derivative of
propan-2-amine hallucinogen, insomnia Phenethylamine
and Sympathomimetic
14. 2-(4-Bromo-2.5- Hallucinogen 2C-B Derivative of
dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine Phenethylamine
15. 1-(4-chloro-2.5-dimethoxy- Euphoria. archetypal DOC Derivative of
phenyl)propan-2-amine psychedelic Phenethylamine
16. 2-(4-Iodo-2.5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-[(2- Stimulant, 25I-NBOMe Derivative of
methoxypehyl)methyl]ethanamine hallucinogen, and Toxic Phenethylamine
17. 2-(4-Bromo-2.5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N- Stimulant, 25B-NBOMe Derivative of
[(2-methoxypehyl)methyl]ethanamine Hallucinogen, and Toxic Phenethylamine
18. 2-(4-Chloro-2.5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N- Stimulant, 25C-NBOMe Derivative of
[(2-methoxypehyl)methyl]ethanamine hallucinogen, and Toxic Phenethylamine
19. Catha edulis contains cathinone and Psycho Stimulant Khat Plant Cathinone and
cathine contains Cathine
Cathinone
and Cathine
20. 5-fluoro AKB48 Hallucinogen, effect 5-fluoro AKB Synthetic
cannabinoid and toxic 48 Cannabinoid

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 160
 1 2 3 4 5
21. MAM 2201 Hallucinogen, effect MAM 2201 Synthetic
cannabinoid and toxic Cannabinoid
22. 1-benzofuran-4-yl-propan-2-amine Stimulant, 4 APB Derivative of
hallucinogen, and Toxic Phenethylamine
23. 1-Benzylpiperazine Euphoria, increases BZP Derivative of
heart rate, dilated Piperazine
pupil, and Toxic
24. 1-(3-Chlorophenyl)piperazine Euphoria, increases mCPP Derivative of
heart rate, dilated Piperazine
pupils, and Toxic
25. 1-(3-Trifluoromethylphenyl)piperazine Euphoria, increases TFMPP Derivative of
heart rate, dilated Piperazine
pupils, and Toxic
26. 2-(1H-indol-3-yl)-1-methyl-ethylamine Euphoria, empathy, α-MT Derivative of
psychedelic, Stimulant, Tryptamine
and anxiety
27. 3.4-Methylenedioxy-N-ethylchatinone Stimulant, euphoria Ethylone (bk- Derivative of
MDEA.MDEC) Cathinone
28. 4-methyl buphedrone Stimulant, euphoria Buphedrone Derivative of
Cathinone
29. 5-methoxy N.N- Stimulant, hallucinogen 5-MeO-MiPT Derivative of
methylisopropyltryptamine Tryptamine
30. (1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indol-3- Hallucinogen, FUB-144 Synthetic
yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl) cannabinoid effect and Cannabinoid
methanone toxic
31. N-[(1S)-1-(aminocarbonyl)-2- Hallucinogen, effect AB- Synthetic
methylpropyl)]-1-(cyclohexylmethyl)- cannabinoid dan toxic CHMINACA Cannabinoid
1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
32. N-[(1S)-1-(aminocarbonyl)-2- Hallucinogen, AB-FUBINACA Synthetic
methylpropyl]-1-[(4-fluorophenyl) cannabinoid effect and Cannabinoid
methyl]-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide toxic
33. Naphthalen-1-yl-(-4- Hallucinogen, CB 13 Synthetic
pentyloxynaphthalen-1-yl) methanone cannabinoid effect and Cannabinoid
toxic
34. 1-(4-Chlorophenyl)-2- Stimulant, euphoria 4-chloro Derivative of
(methylamino)propan-1-one metchatinone Cathinone
35. Methyl 2-({1-[(4-fluorophenyl)methyl]- Hallucinogen, FUB-AMB Synthetic
1H-indazole-3-carbonyl}amino)-3- cannabinoid effect and Cannabinoid
methylbutanoate toxic
36. Hallucinogen, AB-PINACA Synthetic
N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-
cannabinoid effect and Cannabinoid
1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
toxic
37. [1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazol-3- Hallucinogen, THJ-2201 Synthetic
yl](naphthalen-1-yl)methanone cannabinoid effectand Cannabinoid
toxic
38. 1-naphthalenyl(1-pentyl-1H-indazol-3- Hallucinogen, effect THJ-018 Synthetic
yl)-methanone cannabinoid dan toxic Cannabinoid
39. N-(1-Amino-3.3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan- Hallucinogen, ADB- Synthetic
2-yl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3- cannabinoid effect and FUBINACA Cannabinoid
carboxamide toxic
40. N-(1-Amino-3.3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan- Hallucinogen, ADB- Synthetic
2-yl)-1-(cyclohexymethyl)-1H-indazole- cannabinoid effect and CHMINACA Cannabinoid
3-carboxamide toxic
41. Methyl 2-{[1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H- Hallucinogen, MDMB- Synthetic
indol-3-yl]foRestaurantamido}-3.3- cannabinoid effect and CHMICA Cannabinoid
dimethylbutanoate toxic
42. Methyl (S)-2-[1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H- Hallucinogen, effect 5-fluoro ADB Synthetic
indazole-3-carboxamido]-3.3- cannabinoid dan toxic Cannabinoid
dimethylbutanoate
43. (RS)2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2- Hallucination, euphoria, Methoxe- Derivative of
(ethylamino)cyclohexanone psychotomimetic tamin Ketamin

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 161
 1 2 3 4 5
Not controlled by legislation
44. Mitragyna speciosa contains Effect like opiat and Kratom contains Plant. plant
mitragynine dan speciogynine cocain mitragynine and based powder
speciogynine
45. 2-(2-chlorophenyl)2- Hallucination, euphoria, Ketamine Ketamine
(methylamino)cyclohexan-1-one psychotomimetic
46. (±)-1-(4-methylphenyl)-2- Stimulant, hallucinogen, Benzedron Derivative of
(benzylamino)propan-1-one insomnia and Cathinone
Sympathomimetic
47. 3-Methoxy-2-(methylamino)-1-(4- Stimulant, hallucinogen, MEXEDRON Derivative of
methylphenyl)propan-1-one insomnia and Cathinone
Sympathomimetic
48. 1-(1.3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2- Stimulant, hallucinogen, PENTYLONE Derivative of
(methylamino)pentan-1-one insomnia and Cathinone
Sympathomimetic
49. 1-(2H-1.3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2- Stimulant, hallucinogen, N- Derivative of
(ethylamino)pentan-1-one insomnia and ETHYLPENTYLO Cathinone
Sympathomimetic NE
50. (1-Butyl-1H-indol-3-yl)(naphthalen-1- Hallucinogen, JWH-073 Synthetic
yl)methanone cannabinoid effect and Cannabinoid
toxic
51. (4-methylnaphthalen-1-yl)(1-pentyl- Hallucinogen, JWH-122 Sybthetic
1H-indol-3-yl)methanone cannabinoid effect and Cannabinoid
toxic
52. 2-4(iodo-2.5- Stimulant, hallucinogen 2-CI Derivative of
dimethoxiphenyl)ethanamine and toxic Phenetyl-amine
53. 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2- Stimulant, hallucinogen, 4-Chloro- Derivative of
(ethylamino)propan-1-one insomnia and ethcathi-none Cathinone
sympathomimetic
54. N-(Adamantan-1-il)-1-(5-kloropentil)- Hallucinogen, 5-Chloro AKB 48 Synthetic
1H-Indazol-3-karboksamida cannabinoid effect and Cannabinoid
toxic
55. MethylN-{[1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H- Hallucinogen, 5-fluoro-AMB Synthetic
indazol-3-yl]carbonyl}valinate cannabinoid effect and Cannabinoid
toxic
56. Naphthalen-1-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)- Hallucinogen, SDB-005 Synthetic
1H-indole-3-carboxylate cannabinoid effect and Cannabinoid
toxic
57. N-(1-amino-3.3dimethyl-1-oxobutan- Hallucinogen, 5-fluoro- Synthetic
2-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3- cannabinoid effect and ADBICA Cannabinoid
carboxamide toxic
58. 1-phenyl-2-(propylamino)-1- Stimulant, hallucinogen, Alpha- Derivative of
pentanone insomnia and Prophylaminop Cathinone
Sympathomimetic entiop-henone
59. Ethyl (1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole- Hallucinogen, canna- EMB-Fubinaca Synthetic
3-carbonyl)valinate binoid effect and toxic Cannabinoid
60. N-ethyl-1-(4-methoxyphenyl)propan- Stimulant, hallucinogen PMEA Derivative of
2-amine and toxic Phenetylamine
61. Mimosa Tenuiflora Mengan-dung Plant Based
DMT Substance
62. Ayahuasca (Banisteriopsis Caapi dan Mengan-dung Plant Based
Psychotria viridis) DMT Substance
63. 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1- 4-Chloro-Alpha- Derivative of
yl)pentan-1-one PVP Cathinone
64. α-ethylaminocaprophenone. N- N-Ethyl- Derivative of
ethylnorhexedrone. hexen and NEH hexedrone Cathinone
65. naphthalen-1-yl 1-[(4- FDU-PB-22 Synthetic
fluorophenyl)methyl]-1H-indole-3- Cannabinoid
carboxylate
Source : BNN Drug Testing Laboratory, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 162
2. Demand Reduction.
a. Drug Abusers Rehabilitated at Government Rehabilitation Institutions
2017, Drug Abusers Rehabilitated at BNN Rehabilitation Center,
Rehabilitation Building, Rehabilitation House, 2017, and Total Drug
Abusers Receiving Post Rehabilitation from BNN, 2017.
1) Total Drug Abusers Rehabilitated at Government Rehabilitation
Institutions, 2017.
Table 3.60. Total Drug Abusers Rehabilitated at Government
Rehabilitation Institutions, 2017
NO. TYPE OF REHABILITATION TOTAL
1 2 3
1. Inpatient/Resident at Rehabilitation Center 1,833
2. Inpatient Rehab in Prison 115
Outpatient Rehab at Clinic/Hospital/
3. 13,664
Community Health Center
TOTAL 15,612
Source : BNN Deputy of Rehabilitation, March 2018

Table 3.61. Total Drug Abusers Rehabilitated at Community

Rehabilitation Institution, 2017
NO. REHABILITATION TOTAL
1 2 3
1. Inpatient 68
2. Medical Outpatient Rehabilitation 415
3. Social Inpatient Rehabilitation 132
4. Social Outpatient Rehabilitation 327
TOTAL 942
Source : BNN Deputy of Rehabilitation, March 2018

2) Drug Abusers Rehabilitated at BNN Rehabilitation Center,

Rehabilitation Building and Rehabilitation House, 2017.

Table 3.62. Total Drug Abusers Rehabilitated at BNN Rehabilitation

Center, Rehabilitation Building and Rehabilitation House
Based on Gender, 2017
TOTAL PATIENT
REHAB
REHAB
REHAB BUILDING REHAB
RESIDENTS BUILDING REHAB
NO. CENTER TANAH HOUSE TOTAL
AMITTED BADDOKA HOUSE
LIDO MERAH BATAM
MAKASSAR KALIANDA
WEST EAST RIAU
SOUTH LAMPUNG
JAVA KALI- ISLANDS
SULAWESI
MANTAN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Males 924 281 200 192 130 1,727
2. Females 58 31 7 9 0 105
TOTAL 982 313 207 201 130 1,833
Source : Rehabilitation Center BNN, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 163
 Table 3.63. Total Drug Abusers at BNN Rehabilitation Center,
Rehabilitation Building, and Rehabilitation House Based on
Age Group, 2017
TOTAL PATIENTS
REHAB REHAB REHAB REHAB
REHAB
AGE CENTER BUILDING BUILDING HOUSE
NO. HOUSE TOTAL
GROUP LIDO BADDOKA TANAH BATAM
KALIANDA
WEST SOUTH MERAH EAST RIAU
LAMPUNG
JAVA SULAWESI KALIMANTAN ISLANDS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. < 16 9 5 29 0 0 43
Years
2. 16-20 90 124 43 14 457
186
Years
3. 21-25 76 47 46 22 435
244
Years
4. 26-30 66 6 40 33 358
213
Years
5. 31-35 38 1 37 32 274
166
Years
6. 36-40 22 0 15 15 156
104
Years
7. 41-45 0 0 0 8 41
33
Years
8. > 46 16 0 20 6 69
Years 27
TOTAL 982 313 207 201 130 1,833
Source : BNN Rehabilitation Center, March 2018

Table 3.64. Total Drug Abusers at BNN Rehabilitation Center,

Rehabilitation Building, and Rehabilitation House Based on
Education, 2017

TOTAL PATIENTS
REHAB
REHAB
REHAB BUILDING REHAB
BUILDING REHAB
CENTER TANAH HOUSE
NO. EDUCATION BADDOKA HOUSE TOTAL
LIDO MERAH BATAM
MAKASSAR KALIANDA
WEST EAST RIAU
SOUTH LAMPUNG
JAVA KALI- ISLANDS
SULAWESI
MANTAN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. No schooling 2 5 8 0 0 15
2. Elementary 40 28 37 20 12 137
3. Junior High
128 97 52 25 14 316
School
4. Senior High
623 140 91 129 81 1,064
Shool
5. Diplome 45 4 4 7 3 63
6. Undergraduate 139 39 15 20 20 233
7. Master 5 0 0 0 0 5
TOTAL 982 313 207 201 130 1,833
Source : BNN Rehabilitation Center, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 164
 Table 3.65. Total, Drug Abusers at BNN Rehabilitation Center,
Rehabilitation Building and Rehabilitation House Based on
Occupation, 2017
TOTAL PATIENTS
REHAB
REHAB REHAB REHAB
BUILDING REHAB
CENTER BUILDING HOUSE
NO. OCCUPATION BADDOKA HOUSE TOTAL
LIDO TANAH BATAM
MAKASSAR KALIANDA
WEST MERAH EAST RIAU
SOUTH LAMPUNG
JAVA KALIMANTAN ISLANDS
SULAWESI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Artist (Film, 1 0 0 0 0 1
TV)
2. Labour 8 17 4 15 6 50
3. Honorary 14 0 0 0 1 15
4. Teacher 3 0 0 0 0 3
5. Univ. Student 48 13 4 2 1 68
6. Fisherman 4 0 2 0 0 6
7. School 62 22 15 25 1 125
Student
8. Seaman 1 0 0 0 1
9. Fire Fighter 4 0 0 0 0 4
10. Farmer 10 0 0 0 0 10
11. Lawyer 1 0 0 0 0 1
12. Civil Servant 47 8 4 16 32 107
13. Police 31 6 0 3 0 40
14. Driver 4 0 3 0 0 7
15. Artist (Craft) 1 0 0 0 0 1
16. Private 143 11 23 20 17 214
Sector
17. Unemployed 354 161 122 73 43 753
18. Parking 0 0 0 0 1
Attendant 1
19. Journalist 1 0 0 0 0 1
20. Entrepreneur 244 75 30 47 29 425
TOTAL 982 313 207 201 130 1,833
Source : BNN Rehabilitation Center, March 2018

Table 3.66. Total Drug Abusers at BNN Rehabilitation Center,

Rehablitation Building, and Rehabilitation House Based on
Drugs Abused, 2017
TOTAL PATIENTS
REHAB REHAB
REHAB REHAB
BUILDING BUILDING REHAB
CENTER HOUSE
NO. DRUGS ABUSED BADDOKA TANAH HOUSE TOTAL
LIDO BATAM
MAKASSAR MERAH KALIANDA
WEST RIAU
SOUTH EAST LAMPUNG
JAVA ISLANDS
SULAWESI KALIMANTAN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Benzodiazepam 79 0 2 0 0 81
2. MDMA 152 0 1 201 120 474
3. Methampetamin 905 258 192 0 6 1,361
4. Opiates 44 25 2 0 0 71
5. Other Drugs 21 26 8 0 0 55
6. THC 295 4 2 0 4 305
7. Cocaine 1 0 0 0 0 1
TOTAL 982 313 207 201 130 2,348
Source : BNN Rehailitation Center, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 165
 3) Total Drug Abusers Receiving Post Rehabilitation, 2017.
Table 3.67. Total drug Abusers Receiving Post Rehabilitation, 2017
NO. Service Received TOTAL
1 2 3
1 Post Rehabilitaation at BNN 60
2 Post Rehabilitation at BNNP/BNNK 3,643
3 Post Rehabilitation at Bapas 2,626
4 Extended Treatment at BNN 30
5 Extended Treatment at di BNNP 2,125
6 Halfway House at BNN 213
7 Halfway House at BNNP 1,120
TOTAL 9,817
Source : BNN Deputy of Rehabilitation, March 2018

b. Drug Abusers Having self Reported to Receiving Institution for

Compulsory Reporting (IPWL) from Ministry of Health RI, 2017
Table 3.68. Total Compulsory Reporting and Medical Rehabilitation, 2017
TYPE OFREHABILITATION
BUPRE-
CITY/ INPA- OUTPA- METHA-
NO. PROVINCE NOR- TTL
REGENCY TIENT TIENTS DONE
PHINE
TREAT TREAT- MAINTE-
MAINTE-
MENT MENT NANCE
NANCE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Aceh Banda Aceh/City 18 52 70
2. Bali Kab. Bangli/Regency 50 30 80
3. Bangka Belitung Kab. Bangka/Regency 1 6 7
4. Bengkulu Kota Bengkulu/City 100 100
5. DI Yogyakarta Kab. Sleman/Regency 22 54 76
South Jakarta 30 8 1,195 1,233
6. DKI Jakarta
East Jakarta 734 230 4,740 5,704
7. Jambi Kota Jambi/City 39 18 57
West Bandung/ 48 31 79
Regency
8. West Java Kota Bandung/City 72 72
Kota Bogor City 59 6 65
Kab. Klaten/Regency 43 19 62
Kota Magelang/City 8 8
9. Central Java Kota Pekalongan/City 6 6
Kota Semarang/City 110 0 110
Kota Surakarta/City 8 19 27
Kab. Malang/Regency 23 41 64
10. East Java
Kota Surabaya/City 19 42 87 163
11. West Kalimantan Kota Pontianak/City 55 41 138
12. South Kalimantan Kab. Banjar/Regency 146 89 235
13. East Kalimantan Kota Samarinda/City 19 0 19
14. North Kalimantan Kota Tarakan/City 156 156
15. Lampung Kota Bandar 14 182 196
Lampung/City
16. West Nusa Tenggara Kota Mataram/City 13 15 28
Kab. Indragiri 13 13
17. Riau Hilir/Regency
Kota Pekanbaru/City 58 30 88
18. S.E.Sulawesi Kota Palu/City 9 6 15
Kab. Agam/Regency 44 44
19. West Sumatera Kota Bukittinggi/City 4 4
Kota Padang/City 48 93 141
20. South Sumatera Kota Palembang/City 81 220 520
TOTAL 19 1,770 6,283
Source : Ministry of Health RI, March 2018
Note : -PTRM : Methadone Maintenance Program, PTRB : Buprenorphine Maintenance Program

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 166
 c. Self Reported Drug Abusers to IPWL, by Ministry of Social Affairs RI,
2017.
Table 3.69. Total Drug Abusers Self Reporting to IPWL Based on Rehabilitation
Facility, 2017
NO PROVINCE NO INSTITUTION INPATIENT* OUTPATIENT NOTE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Aceh 1 Yakita Aceh 6 -
2 Yayasan Safirah Aceh 80 100
3 Yayasan Pintu Hijrah 10 47
4 Yayasan Tabina Aceh 75 -
2. North Sumatera 5 PSPP Insyaf 200 -
6 Lembaga Rehab Sibolangit Centre 40 -
7 Yayasan Nazar 40 110
8 Medan Plus 40 120
9 Yayasan Keris Sakti 30 90
10 Lembaga Terpadu Pemasyarakatan 10 50
Anti Narkoba
11 Yayasan Haga Christ 10 -
12 Yayasan Sungai Jordan Kasih 10 50
13 Bukit Doa Taman Getsemane 24 75
14 Minyak Narwastu 15 50
15 Rahmani Kasih 10 20
16 Pondok Trenkely 10 35
17 Yayasan Mitra Masyarakat Sehat 10 50
18 Lembaga Rehabilitasi Pencegahan 20 50
Penyalahgunaan Narcotics (LRPPN)
Bhayangkara
19 Minar Christ 10 25
20 Rumah Ummi 10 -
3. Riau 21 Yayasan Siklus 10 50
22 Yayasan Mercusuar Riau 20 115
23 Yayasan Safirah Riau - 15
24 Yayasan Satu Bumi - 100
4. West Sumatera 25 Yayasan Al Ikhwan Sucihati 7 75
26 New Padoe Jiwa 10 75
27 LSM Gempa 9 50
5. Jambi 28 Sahabat Jambi 29 300
29 IPWL Al Jannah 20 40
30 Yamika Natura Jambi 10 50
6. South Sumatera 31 Yayasan Ar Rahman 35 75
32 Yayasan Mitra Mulia 20 100
33 Yayasan Cahaya Putra Selatan 30 140
34 Yayasan DhaRestauranta Wahyu 39 180
Insani Palembang
35 IPWL Sriwijaya 23 100
36 Syifa Alif Rahman 10 50
7. Bengkulu 37 Yayasan KIPAS 15 60
38 ORestaurantas Peduli Sosial Nasional 6 70
(PESONA)
39 Yayasan DhaRestauranta Wahyu 25 110
Insani Bengkulu
8. Bangka Belitung 40 Yayasan DhaRestauranta Wahyu 30 85
Insani Bangka Nelitung
41 Wado Health Care Bangka Nelitung - 50
Foundation
9. Riau Islands 42 Yayasan Lintas Nusa 25 50
43 Yayasan Rumah Rehabilitasi Sosial 10 85
Anak Indonesia
44 Yayasan Rumah Harapan 10 50

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 167
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Lampung 45 Yayasan Sinarjati 15 40
46 Wisma Ataraxis 15 40
47 Yayasan Srikandi Bandar Surabaya 10 30
48 LKS Riyadlotunnufus 10 50
11. DKI Jakarta 49 PSPP Khusnul Khotimah - -
50 Yayasan Kapeta 20 -
51 Yayasan Karisma 10 40
52 Madani Mental Health Care 20 125
53 Natura 18 60
54 Al Jahu 20 80
55 GMDM 40 870
56 Yayasan Sahabat Rekan Sebaya 20 40
57 Jakarta Plus Center 10 75
58 Yayasan Mutiara Maharani 20 75
59 Yayasan Balarenik 15 75
60 Yayasan Kasih Mulya (Kedaton - -
Parahita)
61 Yayasan Sembilan 10 75
62 Yayasan Stigma 10 70
63 Yayasan Catur Wangsa Nusantara 10 65
12. Banten 64 Yayasan Hikmah Syahadah 10 25
65 Bani Syifa 10 -
66 Nururrohman 10 -
67 YRESTAURANT Dira Sumantriwintoha 10 35
13. West Java 68 PSPP Galih Pakuan 717 278
69 BRSPP Lembang - -
70 Yayasan Untuk Segala Bangsa 30 55
71 YAKITA Bogor 20 75
72 PSKN Penuai 70 840
73 Yayasan PEKA Bogor 20 100
74 Yayasan SekaRestaurantawar 6 -
75 Inabah II Puteri 20 65
76 Yayasan Nurul Jannah 20 -
77 Inabah XV 20 -
78 Yayasan Maha Kasih 14 150
79 Breakthrough Missions 13 -
80 Yayasan Rumah Asa Anak Bangsa 10 50
81 Yayasan Pelayanan Agape 20 75
82 Yayasan As Sabur (Bumi Kaheman) 10 50
83 Yayasan Prama 10 150
84 Yayasan Putra Agung Mandiri 10 75
86 Yayasan Generasi Jabez Indonesia 10 75
87 Yayasan Katarsis Sarasati Edukasi 20 100
88 Yayasan Karang Madya Depok 10 50
89 Yayasan Bersama Kita Pulih 20 50
90 LKS Societa Indonesia 15 50
91 Pondok Remaja Inabah XVII Puteri 25 -
92 Pondok Remaja Inabah XVIII Putera 25 -
93 Yayasan Bakti Putra 15 50
94 Yayasan Peduli Kasih Bekasi 10 50
95 Yayasan Citra Mulya Mandiri 30 320
96 Ianatush Syibyan 5 50
97 Yayasan Al Karomah 10 50
98 Lembaga InfoRestaurantasi dan 6 75
Konsultasi (LIK) Sadulur
99 Yayasan Bunga Bangsaku - 75
100 Yayasan Nurido Sabar Abadi 10 50
101 Yayasan Tenjo Laut 10 50

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 168
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Central Java 101 PSRSKP Napza "Satria" Baturaden 46 -
102 Rumah Damai 16 -
103 YPI Nurul Ichsan Al Islami 15 30
104 PA. Rehabilitasi At Tauhid 10 84
105 Yayasan Cinta Kasih Bangsa 10 50
106 Pemulihan Pelita 6 100
107 Maunatul Mubarok 15 50
108 Yayasan Mitra Alam 15 350
109 Ponpes Al Ma'la 20 160
110 Yayasan PA. Raden Sahid 15 -
111 Sinai 10 50
15. DI Yogyakarta 112 Yayasan Rehabilitasi Kunci 20 11
113 Galilea Elkana 25 145
114 Yayasan Griya Pemulihan Siloam - 60
115 Yayasan Indo Charis 10 70
116 Al Islami 10 75
16. East Java 117 Inabah XIX Surabaya 35 -
118 Yayasan Pemulihan Doulos 20 -
119 Yayasan Corpus Christi 10 -
120 Yayasan Bambu Nusantara 20 200
121 Eklesia Kediri Foundation 10 70
122 Komunitas Pemuda Peduli Masyarakat 15 70
Banyuwangi
123 Yayasan Bambu Nusantara II (Rumah 60 370
Kita)
124 Yayasan Bahrul Maghfiroh Cinta - -
Indonesia
125 GHANA PKBI Pamekasan 20 80
126 Yayasan Lembaga Kessos Daruddawam 10 40
127 Yayasan Orbit 15 80
128 Plato Foundation 26 125
17. Bali 129 Yayasan Kasih Kita Bali 6 20
130 Yakeba 10 70
131 Yayasan Pesona Sivana Bali - 10
18. West Nusa 132 Aksi WEST NUSA TENGGARA/NTB 20 70
Tenggara 133 Rumah Dampingan Lentera 15 75
19. East Nusa 134 Yayasan Warna Kasih Kupang - 50
Tenggara 135 Yayasan Mitra Harapan 5 50
20. South Kalimantan 136 Yayasan Serba Bakti - 50
137 IPWL Kalimantan Selatan - -
138 Yayasan Griya Pemberdayaan 10 50
139 Yayasan Lentera Hati Bumi Indonesia 29 135
21. Central 140 Yayasan Galilea 85 200
Kalimantan
22. East Kalimantan 141 Pondok Modern Ibadurrahman 20 -
142 Yayasan Laras 15 50
143 Yayasan SEKATA 10 50
23. West Kalimantan 144 RBM Khatulistiwa 15 80
145 LSM Merah Putih 15 75
146 Yayasan Pontianak Plus 15 75
147 RBM Juang 15 60
148 IPWL Teratai Khatulistiwa 63 30
24. West Sulawesi 149 Amada 10 75
25. South Sulawesi 150 YKP2N 170 750
151 Yayasan Doulos Perwakilan Makassar 10 20
152 Yayasan RBM Nirannuang - 425
26. North Sulawesi 153 Yayasan Pelayanan Kristen Bunga 25 100
Bakung
154 Yayasan Jameela Husein Ministry - 40
155 IPWL Kalooran - -
27. S.E Sulawesi 156 Yayasan Family Rekan Sebaya 20 75
28. Central Sulawesi 157 Yayasan Tiara Nusantara 10 35
29. Maluku 158 Lembaga Pengabdian Pemuda Bangsa - 120
30. North Maluku 159 IPWL Akekolano Oba Utara - -
31. Papua 160 Yayasan Pendampingan dan Pember- 10 75
dayaan Masyarakat Papua dan Papua
Barat (YP2MP)
TOTAL 3,684 13,060
Source : Ministry of Social Affairs RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 169
 d. Self Reported Drug Abusers to IPWL from Center of Medical and Health,
Police HQ, 2017.

TOTAL
NO. PROVINCE IPWL NOTE
CLIENTS
1 2 3 4 5
1. West Sumatera Biddokes Polda West 2 TAT
Sumatera
2. Jambi Biddokes Polda Jambi 4 TAT
3. Bangka Belitung Biddokkes Polda Kep. 1
Islands IPWL
Bangka Nelitung
4. South Sumatera Bhayangkara Hospital 1 TAT
Palembang
5. West Java Bhayangkara Sartika Asih 20 IPWL
Hospital
Bhayangkara Hospital Mobile 67 TAT
Brigade Kelapa Dua Depok
6. East Java Bhayangkara Hospital 16 TAT
Lumajang
7. South Kalimantan Bhayangkara Hospital 4 TAT
Banjarmasin
TOTAL 115
Source : Police Medical and Health Center, March 2015

e. Injecting Drug Users (IDU) and HIV/AIDS from Ministry of Health RI, 2017
Drug abuse brings ill effects to the health of a drug addict, in
particular to injecting drug addicts, and consequently in the transmission
of HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis B and C. Directorate General of P2PL. Ministry of
Health RI reports that there are 9.280 cases of AIDS from 1 January to 31
December 2017.
Table 3.70. Total Cases of AIDS Based on Gender, Years 2017

NO. GENDER TOTAL AIDS

1 2 3
1. Males 6,314
2. Females 2,959
3. Not known 7
TOTAL 9,280
Source : Directorate General of P2PL Ministry of Health RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 170
 Table 3.71. Total AIDS Cases Based on Risk Factor, 2017

NO. RISK FACTOR TOTAL AIDS

1 2 3

1. Heterosex 6,390

2. IDU 192

3. Homosex 1,894

4. Prenatal 253

5. Bisex 95

6. Transfusion 26

7. Others 39

8. Not known 391

TOTAL 9,280

Source : Directrate General P2P Ministry of Health RI, March 2018

Table 3.72. Total AIDS Cases Based on Age, 2017

NO. AGE GROUP TOTAL AIDS

1 2 3
1. < 1 Years 102
2. 1 – 4 Years 154
3. 5 – 14 Years 106
4. 15 – 19 Years 195
5. 20 – 29 Years 2,830
6. 30 – 39 Years 3,294
7. 40 – 49 Years 1,634

8. 50 – 59 Years 722

9. > 60 Years 215

10. Not known 28

TOTAL 9,280
Source : Directorate General of P2P Ministry of Health RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 171
 f. BNN Deputy of Prevention Activities, 2017.

1) Directorate of Advocacy

Table 3.73. Total Participants of DIPA (Budgetary) and Non DIPA (Non
Budgetary) Activities, Directorate of Advocacy, BNN Deputy of
Prevention, 2017
NO. ACTIVITIES INSTITUTION
1 2 3
DIPA
1. Coordination Meetings with
a. Government Agencies 30 Persons
b. Non Government Agencies 30 Persons
c. Education 30 Persons
d. Community 30 Persons
2. Build a Development Network with
Anti Drugs Insight
a. Government Agencies 15 Ministries/Institutions
b. Non Government Agencies 15 Private Institutions
c. Education 14 Education Institutions
d. Community 15 Community Groups
3. Assistance in Developing an Anti
Drug Insight
a. Government Agencies 10 Ministries/Institutions
b. Non Government Agencies 10 Private Agencies
c. Education 10 Education Institutions
d. Community 10 Community Groups
4. Intervention in the Education
Environment through Good morning
Greeting 2.500 Persons
a. Education
5. Monitoring and Evaluation
a. Non Government Agencies 30 Persons
b. Education 25 Persons
c. Community 25 Persons
6. Strengthening Assistance
a. Government Agencies 90 Persons
b. Non Government Agencies 150 Persons
c. Education 80 Persons
d. Community 120 Persons
7. Mobile Socialization (KIE/
Communiction, Information,
Education) : 96 Activities
a. Government Agencies 275 Persons
b. Non Gevernment Agencies 300 Persons
c. Education 865 Persons
d. Community 1,440 Persons

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 172
 1 2 3
8. Technical Guidance
BNNP (Province) BNNK/City 178 Persons
9. Anti Drug Volunteers
a. Government Agencies 227 Persons
b. NonGovernment Agencies 75 Persons
c. Education 200 Persons
d. Community 931 Persons
10. Indonesia Healthy Week : 2 Activities
Community 1,000 Persons
11. P4GN Communication Forum
Community 100 Persons
12. National Seminar
Government Agencies 100 Persons
NON DIPA (NON BUDGETARY)
1. P4GN Socialization
a. Government Agencies 6,503 Persons
b. Non Government Agencies 7,500 Persons
c. Education 6,250 Persons
d. Community 5,500 Persons
Source : BNN Deputy of Pevention, March 2018

2) Directorate of Information Dissemination

a) DIPA Activities
a. Information Dissemination Through Conventional
Media or Face to Face
TOTAL
NO. TARGET NOTE
PARTICIPANTS
1 2 3 4
1. Family 350 Persons
2. School/Univ. 1,493 Persons
Students
3. Workers 648 Persons
4. Community 4,450 Persons
TOTAL 6,941 Persons
Source : BNN Deputy of Prevention, March 2018

b. Information Dissemination Through Operation of

Mobile Socialization
TOTAL
NO. TARGET NOTE
PARTICIPANTS
1 2 3 4
1. Family 250 Persons
2. School/Univ. 2,400 Persons
Students
3. Workers 1,188 Persons
4. Community 1,483 Persons
TOTAL 5,321 Persons
Source : BNN Deputy of Prevention, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 173
 c. Information Dissemination Through Broadcast Media
(Television and Radio)
NO. CONTENTS MEDIA VOLUME
1 2 3 4
1. P4GN advertisement - 5 advertisements 60
through radio broadcast seconds duration
2. P4GN advertisement to Communication 5 advertisements of
radio community meeting West 60 seconds duration
Java, Central Java,
DI Yogyakarta,
Central Java, DI
Yogyakarta
3. P4GN advertisements DFM Radio 5 advertisements of
through private radio 60 seconds duration
4. Production and Broadcast I-News and Jak TV 1 Filler with 60
on television the peak of seconds material
STOP Drugs Campaign
5. Short film production on - 1 Short Film ( 7
P4GN with the family as the minutes duration)
rarget
6. Production of P4GN - 1 Animation film (60
Animation in multimedia sec. duration))
targeting University
Students
7. P4GN advertisement on - 1 advertisement ( 60
television targeting sec. duration)
commucity
8. Production and broadcast of RRI/Radio 1 ILM and broadcast
P4GN on radio targeting RepublicIndonesia of 272 spots
students (Program ICU dan
Nampang)
9. P4GN broadcast in KBR, Trijaya FM, Broadcast of
electronic media targeting Elshinta Interactive Dialogue
students
Source : BNN Deputy of Prevention, March 2018

d. Information Dissemination through Printed Media

NO. CONTENT NAME OF MEDIA
1 2 3
1. Ear-Ad Warta Kota
2. Top Banner Tabloid Bola (Bolavaria)
Source : BNN Deputy of Prevention, March 2018

e. Information Dissemination through Outdoor Media

NO. TARGET CONTENTS
1 2 3
1. Family Mural
2. School/Univ. - School Bus Branding
Students - City Transportation
- Posters
- Leaflets
- Stickers
- T-Shirt and Polo T-Shirt
3. Workers - Mural
- Billboard
4. Community - Mural
- Billboard
- Banner
- Pennant
Source : BNN Deputy of Prevention, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 174
 f. Information Dissemination through Online Media
(a) Website Indonesia Bergegas
www.cegahnarkoba.bnn.go.id
Total distribution of website visitors from January-
October 2017 is 11.724.54. This number of website
visitors consists of unique visitors (new visitors).
(b)Utilizing online media by the management of Online
News
Until October 2017 the total readers of news and
articles has increased in the “stop drugs” website:

NO. MONTH READERS

1 2 3
1. January 372,813
2. February 317,951
3. March 693,473
4. April 317,951
5. May 190,723
6. June 0
7. July 425
8. August 0
9. September 0
10. October 0
TOTAL 1,893,336
Source : BNN Deputy of Prevention, March 2018

(c) Social Media (Social Media Management)

Until the month of October 2017, the following
statistics are shown in relation with the twitter
account @BNNcegahnarkoba:
FOLLO AFFORDABLE
NO. MONTH
WERS MESSAGE
1 2 3 4
1. January-October 11,400 815,572
2017
Source : BNN Deputy of Prevention, March 2018

(d)Instagram, address of the account

BNNcegahnarkoba:
Until October 2017, the following are the statistics of
the Instagram account BNNcegahnarkoba:
NO. MONTH POST FOLLOWERS LIKE
1 2 3 4 5
1. January-October
1,079 4,582 53,370
2017
Source : BNN Deputy of Prevention, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 175
 (e) Facebook Fanpage. with the account address
BNNcegahnarkoba:
In general, hereunder is the performance of the
fanpage Facebook “BNN cegahnarkoba” from
January-October 2017:

NO. MONTH LIKE FOLLOWERS REACH

1 2 3 4 5

1. January- 4,530 4,523 345,495

October
2017

Source : BNN Deputy of Prevention, March 2018

(f) “CNS” Cegah Narkoba Streaming Radio

Listeners of the streaming radio is quite sufficient and
has its own listeners. It is seen from the inter-
activities in the twitter social media, and in the
following statistics from January – October 2017:

NO. LISTENERS NOTE

1 2 3

1. 1.870 Listeners are those who

listed in the website, mobile
phone and Android Apps

Source : BNN Deputy of Prevention, March 2018

(g) Placement of National Online

As a national media Detikcom is already wellknown
and has a large number of visitors. It is used as a
media for information dissemination on the dangers
of drug abuse with the use of videos, articles and
information, including images. Statistics are
presented here under:

NO. REACH CLICKS CTR

1 2 3 4

1. 10,666,073 6,604 0.3%

Source : BNN Deputyof Prevention, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 176
 (h)Communication, Information and Education
(CIE/KIE)
Activities and participants of KIE implemented by
BNNP and BNNK all over Indonesia till December 2017
are as follows:
TARGET:
TARGET: TARGET:
TARGET: SCHOOL/
NO. KIE P4GN WOR COMMUN
FAMILIES UNIV
KERS ITY
STUDENTS
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Total 346 369 330 357
Activities
2. Total 13,840 14,760 13,200 14,280
Partici
pants
(Persons)
Source : BNN Deputy of Prevention March 2018

The total implemented KIE activities on P4GN is 1,400

with the involvement of 56,000 participants.

(i) Information Dissemination

Data of the Total dissemination implemented by
BNNP and BNNK all over Indonesia in the four
abovementioned media till December 2017 are as
follows:
CONVEN- BROAD-
NO. MEDIA PRINTED ONLINE
TIONAL CAST
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Total 411,373 21,737,152 52,062,952 12,679,557
Infor-
mation
Dissemina
tion
Source : BNN Deputy of Prevention, March 2018

b) Non DIPA (Non Budgetary) Axtivities

- Socialization of P4GN

TOTAL
NO. TARGET NOTES
PARTICIPANTS
1 2 3
1. School/Univ. Students 13,878 Persons
2. Workers 784 Persons
3. Community 1,429 Persons
TOTAL 16,091 Persons
Source : BNN Deputy of Prevention, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 177
 g. Activities of BNN Deputy of Community Empowerment, 2017.

Table 3.74. Total Urine Tests Conducted by Deputy of Community

Empowerment, 2017
TOTAL TOTAL
NO. AGENCY POSITIVE %
ACTIVITIES TESTS
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Government Agencies 73 13,046 11 0.08
2. Private Agencies 29 8,211 40 0.49
3. Education 10 2,886 - -
4. Community 16 692 - -
TOTAL 128 24,835 51 0.20
Source : BNN Deputy of Community Empowerment, March 2018

Table 3.75. Total Urine Tests Conducted by BNNP, 2017

TOTAL TOTAL %
NO. PROVINCE POSITIVE
ACTIVITIS TESTS
1 2 3 4
1. Aceh 22 1,132 - -
2. Bangka Belitung 12 734 1 0.14
3. Bali 44 1,825 3 0.16
4. Banten 5 1,244 - -
5. Bengkulu 39 1,782 6 0.34
6. DI Yogyakarta 64 4,940 4 0.08
7. DKI Jakarta 155 37,934 - -
8. Gorontalo 29 896 3 0.33
9. West Java 163 14,728 - -
10. Jambi 7 432 - -
11. Cwntral Java 133 13,333 3 0.02
12. East Java 272 20,427 10 0.05
13. West Kalimantan 64 3,717 9 0.24
14. South Kalimantan 123 12,298 50 0.41
15. Central Kalimantan 23 4,041 - -
16. East Kalimantan 11 1,194 - -
17. Riau Islands 40 3,255 - -
18. Lampung 42 4,729 23 0.49
19. Maluku 27 1,474 - -
20. North Maluku 11 599 - -
21. West Nusa Tenggara 66 4,165 - -
22. East Nusa Tenggara 66 5,192 - -
23. Papua 28 2,823 2 0.07
24. West Papua 16 1,082 10 0.92
25. Riau 56 4,123 22 0.53
26. West Sulawesi 5 260 8 3.08
27. South Sulawesi 66 13,698 14 0.10
28. Central Sulawesi 16 913 12 1.31
29. S.E. Sulawesi 219 5,731 61 1.06
30. North Sulawesi 5 232 - -
31. West Sumatera 35 1,649 - -
32. South Sumatera 16 723 10 1.38
33. North Sumatera 821 20,597 209 1.01
TOTAL 2,701 191,902 460 0.24
Source : Drug Information System, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 178
 Table 3.76. Total Farmers Changing Profession and Total Switch from Cannabis
Cultivation, 2017
TOTAL
SWITCH OF CANNABIS TOTAL
NO. REGION
FUNCTION CULTIVATION FARMERS
AREA
1 2 3 4 5
1. Aceh Besar 20 Ha 30 Ha 20 persons
2. Bireuen 45 Ha 23 Ha 45 persons
3. Gayo Lues 50 Ha 15 Ha 50 persons
Source : BNN Deputy of Community Empowerment, March 2018

Table 3.77. Total Change of Profession in the City Area Prone to Drugs
TOTAL
TOTAL CHANGE PERSENTAGE
NO. AREA GUIDED
OF PROFESSION (%)
PERSONS
1 2 3 4 5
1. Kampung Permata 25 Persons 17 Persons 68%
(Permata Village),
West Jakarta
2. Kampung Boncos 50 Persons 8 Persons 16%
(Broncos Village),
West Jakarta
3. Johar Baru, Central 50 Persons 7 Persons 14%
Jakarta
4. Menteng Tenggulun, 50 Persons 24 Persons 48%
South Jakarta
5. Kampung Agriculture 25 Persons 5 Persons 20%
(Agriculture Village),
East Jakarta
TOTAL 200 Persons 61 Persons 30.5%
Source : BNN Deputy of Community Empowerment, March 2018

h. BNN Contact Center, 2017.

Table 3.78. Total Information Received by BNN Contact Center Based on
Type of Information, 2017
TOTAL INFORMATION
NO. TYPE OF INFORMATION RECEIVED NOTE
1 2 3 4
1. Prevention 170
2. Rehabilitation 313
3. Eradication 2,542
4. Public Relation 55
5. Data and Information 45
6. General Information 4,855
Community Complaints to BNN
7. 4
Principal Secretariat
TOTAL 7,984
Source : BNN Center of Data Research and Information, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 179
 Table 3.79. Total Information Received by BNN Contact Center Based on
Source of Information, 2017

TOTAL NFORMATION
NO. SOURCE OF INFORMATION NOTE
RECEIVED
1 2 3 4
1. Call 1,804
2. SMS 2,692
3. E-mail 1,030
4. Voicemail 19
5. Whatsapp 3,801
6. Blackberry Messenger 2
7. Facebook 157
8. Walk In 22
TOTAL 7,984
Source : BNN Center Of Data Research and Information, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 180
1. Data of Supply Reduction.
Data presented in Supply Reduction from 2015 – 2017 relate to law
enforcement received from different sources, namely BNN, National Police,
Attorney General Office RI, Ministry of Finance RI, Ministry of Justice and Human
Rights.
a. Drug Crimes Handled by National Police and BNN, 2015-2017
Diagram 4.1. Total Drug Cases Based on Drig Classification, 2015-2017

TTL 36,419 3,652 11,356

0
2017

BNN 0
979

POLICE 35,440 3,652 11,356

TTL 36,282 1,540 9,774

0
0
2016

BNN 881

POLICE 35,401 1,540 9,774

TTL 28,594 885 11,418

0
0
2015

BNN 644

POLICE 27,950 885 11,418

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Narcotics Psychotropic Substances Other Addictive Substances NPS Money Laundering

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

In 2017 the most cases handled by National Police and BNN are related to
drug abuse and illicit trafficking amounting to 36,419 cases, showing a relatively
stable condition compared to the years before.
In general, these cases are increasing. Besides giving rise to deep concern
to the ever increasing drug trafficking in Indonesia, but on the other hand, it
also indicates the successful efforts by law enforcement in the disclosures of
drug cases.
Although the total cases of psychotropic substances is far below the
number of Narcotic cases, its increase in percentage from 2016 to 2017 is very
significant if compared to narcotic cases, an indication that trafficking in
psychotropic Substances becomes more lively.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 181
 Diagram 4.2. Total Suspects of Drug Cases Based on Drug Classification,
2015-2017

48,088 4,177 12,220

TTL

0
0
2017

BNN 1,405

46,683 4,177 12,220

POLICE

47,391 1,771 11,227

TTL

0
0
2016

BNN
1,361

11,227
46,030 1,771
POLICE

38,166 1,000 12,166

TTL

0
2015

BNN 1,154

37,012 1,000 12,166

POLICE

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

Narcotics Psychotropic Substances Other Addictive Substances NPS Money Laundering

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

In 2017, along with the handling of many cases of drug abuse and illicit
trafficking, many suspects of narcotic cases were arrested (48,088) compared
with suspects of Psychotropic Substances and other addictive substances.
In line with the trend of abuse and its trafficking, there is a very significant
double increase in percentage among suspects related to Psychotropic
Substances from 2016 to 2017. So it is necessary to heighten awareness that in
2017 the trend of abuse in Psychotropic Substances is likely to increase, and the
higher the increase of abuse, the higher also the trafficking in Psychotropic
Substances.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 182
 Diagram 4.3. Total Suspects of Drug Cases Based on Nationality, 2015 – 2017

70,000

64,378
62,972
60,226
58,896
60,000

51,158
50,037
50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

1,121 1,330 1,406

141 33 174 132 31 163 136 12 148
0
POLICE BNN TTL POLICE BNN TTL POLICE BNN TTL
2015 2016 2017

Indonesians Foreigners

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Indonesian suspects still dominate cases in drug abuse and illicit trafficking
in 2017, while only approx 0.23% of foreign suspects are involved in these
crimes.
Overall, the number of suspects related to drug abuse and illiit trafficking
in Indonesia continue to increase, but foreign drug suspects tend to decrease,
which is the opposite with the number of domestic suspects.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 183
 Diagram 4.4. Total Suspects of Drug Cases Based on Gender, 2015 – 2017

59,109
60,000 57,812
55,439
54,228

50,000
47,079
46,105

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000
4,800 4,950 5,296 5,417
4,073 4,253

974 1,211 1,297

180 150 121
0
POLICE BNN TTL POLICE BNN TTL POLICE BNN TTL
2015 2016 2017

Males Females

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

In 2017, male suspects still dominate drug abuse cases and illicit
trafficking, while only 8.4% of women suspects are involved.
Generally, the number of male and female suspects continue to increase,
but the proportion remains relatively stable with a comparison of 11:1 between
males and females.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 184
 Diagram 4.5. Total Drug Suspects Based on Age Group, 2015 – 2017
117
TTL 9,708 18,339 33,753

2,609
2017

BNN 31 178 234 972

POLICE 9,530 18,105 32,781

2,578 114

TTL 8,889 17,638 31,424

2,312 126
2016

BNN 27 172 256 893

13

POLICE 8,717 17,382 30,531

2,285 113

TTL 7,174 15,275 26,620

2,164 99
2015

BNN 30 47 196 195 686

2,117 69
POLICE 6,978 15,080 25,934

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
< 16 Years 16 – 19 Years 20 – 24 Years 25 – 29 Years > 30 Years

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

In 2017, the largest number of arrested suspects of drug abuse and illicit
trafficking are in the age group of >30 years (33,750), followed by the group
25-29 years (18,339).
Almost in all age groups suspects of drug abuse and illicit trafficking are
increasingly getting larger in number, except in the group of <16 years there is a
decrease in 2017. However, the percentage of increase in this group is the
highest in the period of 2015-2016, so it may be concluded that the trend of
suspects is relatively stable in this group.
In the period 2016-2017 the percentage of increase of suspects tends to
be lower in the groups of 20-24, 25-29 and >30 years compared to the
percentage of increase from 2015-2016 in the same group, but the increase
percentage in the group of 16-19 years in the period 2016-2017 is higher than
in the period 2015-2016. There is indication that in 2017 the trend of drug abuse
and illicit trafficking leads to the group of 16-19 years.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 185
 Diagram 4.6. Total Suspects of Drug Cases Based on Education, 2015 – 2017

TTL 9,839 16,899 36,104 1,637

2017
BNN 198 195 908 70

POLICE 9,641 16,704 35,196 1,567

TTL 8,008 15,368 35,331 1,619

2016

BNN 255 192 741 110

POLICE 7,753 15,176 34,590 1,509

TTL 7,112 12,765 30,055 1,367

2015

BNN 193 170 689 69

POLICE 6,919 12,595 29,366 1,298

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Elementary School Junior High School Senior High School University

TTL 12 35 0
2017

BNN 12 35 0

POLICE 0

TTL 29 25 9
2016

BNN 29 25 9

POLICE 0

TTL 33 0
2015

BNN 33 0

POLICE 0

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No Schooling Drop out Not Registered

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

In 2017 suspects having graduated from Senior High School are the largest
in number (36,104), followed by graduates of Junior High School (16,899).
Drug abuse and illicit trafficking in drugs are consistently increasing
regardless the educational background. But looking closely at the increase
percentage in the period 2016-2017, the educational background tends to have
great influence on the magnitude of increase percentage. The higher the
education the smaller its percentage of increase, and vice versa.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 186
 Between the period 2016-2017 and 2015-2016, the added percentage of
suspects only occurs among graduates of Elementary School, which is relevant
with the previous analysis, the lower the education, the more difficult to ward
off drug abuse and illicit trafficking in drugs.
From the above information those who have no schooling and dropouts
should be very exposed to the dangers of drug abuse, but conclusions cannot be
made because of the limited available data.

Diagram 4.7. Total Suspects of Drug Cases Based on Occupation, 2015 – 2017
367

TTL 422 25,984 17,199 2,625

13
2017

BNN 26 503 496 47

354
POLICE 396 389
25,481 16,703 2,578

TTL 468 24,236 16,481 2,087

2016

BNN 39 17 444 384 27

372

POLICE 429 23,792 16,097 2,060

355
TTL 453 20,777 14,357 1,869
2015

BNN 2715 438 283 13

340
POLICE 426 20,339 14,074 1,856

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Govt. Employee/Village Head Armed Forces/Police Private Sector Entrepreneur Farmer

TTL 6,902 1,327 1,050 8,650

2017

BNN 70 61 16 186

POLICE 6,832 1,266 1,034 8,464

TTL 6,438 1,100 1,260 7,930

2016

BNN 115 45 9 281

POLICE 6,323 1,055 1,251 7,649

TTL 5,283 981 874 6,383

2015

BNN 74 49 19 236

POLICE 5,209 932 855 6,147

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Labour Univ. Student Student No Employment/Prisoner

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 187
 In 2017, the largest number of suspects involved in drug abuse
and illicit trafficking are workers in the private sector (25,895),
followed by entrepreneurs (17,199), and the last the group of unemployed
(8.650).

On the whole, suspects of drug abuse and illicit trafficking continue to

increase, but in 2017 there was a decrease among suspects from the groups of
Civil Servants, Police/Armed Forces, Labour and Including Students. The
conclusion is that the P4GN program in this reported year seems to have
developed a condition of resilience against drug abuse in the four mentioned
groups.

Although private workers, entrepreneurs and the unemployed

have the largest number of suspects in 2017, the increase
percentage indicates a decline compared to the percentage of increase in 2015-
2016.

Looking closely at the trend of drug abuse and illicit trafficking

these groups are not free from the following conditions: environmental
influence, good income, co-workers and workload/educational burden,
Civil Servants, Police/Armed Forces are government institutions that
work in the field of service for the community. They have strong
resilience. and although suspects are very few, but the impact is
great. Private workers and entrepreneurs have sufficient and quite
a stable income. Their urban life style and workload give great
influence to the increase of drug abuse and illicit trafficking. Farmers
and laborers are very close with rough work and intense time demand.
Company workers are bound to employment regulations. Sanctions
are given to workers who are involved in drug abuse and illicit trafficking.
On the other hand, farmers have an unstable income and are not
bound to regulations, so they are prone to being used and are easily
involved in drug trafficking. Concerning drug abuse and illicit trafficking, high
school and university students are greatly influenced by their friends and the
environment. School students are empowered by the family and school
regulations that apply, but university students live far from the family and they
like to lead an urban lifestyle that is more vulnerable to drug abuse and illicit
trafficking. Some of the above factors also cause the idle group to be involved in
drug crimes.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 188
 Diagram 4.8. Total Seized Cannabis Evidence (Herbs, Cultication Area, Seeds
and Plants), 2015 – 2017

TTL 151.53 72 157.8

2017
BNN 0.88 0 3.3

POLICE 150.65 72 154.5

TTL 13.89 425 1,582.69

2016

BNN 2.7 0 0.54

POLICE 11.19 425 1,582.15

TTL 28.7 166.5 32.28

2015

BNN 1.170 26

POLICE 27.53 166.5 6.28

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Cannabis Herbs (Tons) Cultivation Area (Ha) Cannabis Seeds (Grams)

Cannabis Plants (Trees)

205,708
TTL
179
2017

BNN

205,529
POLICE
2,196,418
TTL
20,000
2016

BNN
2,176,418
POLICE
101,195
TTL
2015

10
BNN
101,185
POLICE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

Seizures of Cannabis tend to fluctuate from year to year. Data indicate that
the supply of Cannabis herbs has inverse proportion with the availability of
cultivation area, cannabis seeds and cannabis plants. In the period 2016-2016
there was an increase in seizures of cultivation area, cannabis seeds and
cannabis plants. On the other hand, seizures of cannabis herbs went down.
While in the period 2016-2017 seizures decreased for cultivation area, cannabis
seeds and cannabis plants, but the reverse occurred with cannabis herbs.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 189
 Diagram 4.9. Total Evidence of Seized Narcotics, 2015 – 2017

7,454.78
8,000.00

6,289.43
7,000.00

4,565.32
6,000.00

5,000.00

2,982.96

2,982.96
2,631.07
2,566.41
4,000.00

2,262.06
1,998.91

1,680.56

1,649.38
3,000.00

1,339.34
1,332.37

1,165.35
981.69
2,000.00

461.25
581.5

369.03
270.04

256.88
204.37
184.68

184.68

98.99

71.96
68.47

44.18
33.44
10.54

10.54

10.74
1,000.00
6.97

3.49
0
0

0
0.00
POLICE BNN TTL POLICE BNN TTL POLICE BNN TTL
2015 2016 2017

Heroine (Gr) Cocaine (Gr) Hashish (Gr) Shabu (Kg)

3,106,009
2,782,650
3,500,000

3,000,000
1,980,391

1,694,970

2,500,000
1,336,455

2,000,000
1,113,274

1,500,000
643,936

581,696

323,359

1,000,000 21,134.02
20,909.97
168.56

168.56

863.37
358.43

504.94

224.05

500,000
0

0
POLICE BNN TTL POLICE BNN TTL POLICE BNN TTL
2015 2016 2017

Ecstasy (Tbl) Ecstasy (Gr)

Source : Police and BNN, March 2018

The year 2017 shows that ATS (shabu and ecstasy) remain the popular
drugs, that are hard to eliminate from circulation. A large proportion of
synthetic narcotics tend to decrease, with the exception of ecstasy and shabu.
Seizures of synthetic narcotics fluctuate from year to year. Data of seizures show
that drug dealers always change the drugs they are selling depending on the
condition in the field to avoid law enforcement. If seizures decrease in the
previous period, they will increase in the next period, and vice versa.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 190
 Diagram 4.10. Total Seizures of Psychotropic Substances, 2015 – 2017

4,965,289

4,965,289
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000

1,645,594.50

1,645,594.50
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000

723,525

723,525

264,106.25

264,106.25
603,477

603,477
1,500,000
6,504.98

6,504.98

1,817.77

1,820.95
64,962

64,962
42,952

42,952
1,000,000
7,332

7,332

3.18
641

641
7.6

7.6
500,000
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
POLICE BNN TTL POLICE BNN TTL POLICE BNN TTL
2015 2016 2017

Benzodiazepine (Tbl) Ketamine (Gr) Controlled Medicines (Tbl) Barbiturate (Tbl)

Source : Police dan BNN, March 2018

The year 2017 shows that psychotrophics (such as benzodiazepines,

barbiturates, ketamine and controlled medicine) remain the popular drugs, that
are hard to eliminate from circulation. Seizures of psychotropics fluctuate from
year to year. Data of seizures show that drug dealers always change the drugs
they are selling depending on the condition in the field to avoid law
enforcement. If seizures decrease in the previous period, they will increase in
the next period, and vice versa.

b. Evidence and Suspects of Narcotic Crimes, from Ministry of Finance RI,

2015-2017
Diagram 4.11. Total Natural Narcotics Seized at Airports, Border Crossings and
Sea Ports, 2015 – 2017
339,645.29

350,000.00
300,000.00
250,000.00
200,000.00
150,000.00
3,109.15
414.00

930.73
485.20

107.21

100,000.00
16.64
0.24

50,000.00
0

-
2015 2016 2017

Cannabis (Gr) Heroine (Gr) Hashish (Gr)

Source : Directorate General of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 191
 From 2016 to 2017 the smuggle of natural narcotics at airports, seaports
and border crossings still occur, as is seen from the significant increase in
seizures of cannabis and heroin, than in the previous year, while a significant
increase in seizures of hashish occurred in 2016 but went down in 2017. It is
necessary to be alert of the increase in cannabis seizures as it is not known yet
how large the undetected cannabis cultivation areas are in Aceh.
Diagram 4.12. Total Synthetic Narcotics Seized at Airports, Seaports and
Border Crossings, 2015-2017

520164.50.00
425258.350.00
Ecstasy (Tablet)
Ecstasy (Gr)
600000.0.00 Shabu (Gr)
Happy Five (Tablet)
500000.0.00

169882.520.00
167891.830.00
400000.0.00

300000.0.00
5534.250.00

6772.0.00
2367.0.00

200000.0.00

121.00
100000.0.00
0

0
-
2015 2016 2017
Source : Directorate General of Customs & Excise, Minisitry of Finance RI, March 2018

The smuggle of ATS such as shabu and ecstasy still occur through Airports,
Seaports and Border crossings in the period 2015 – 2017. The circulation of
shabu and ecstasy in Indonesia is very alarming.

Diagram 4.13. Total Narcotics Suspects Based on Gender, 2015–2017

250 226
194
200

150
102
100
45
50 26
18
0
2015 2016 2017
Male Female
Source : Directorate General of Customs & Excise, Ministry of Finance RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 192
 Total suspects bringing Narcotics into Indonesia through air, sea and land
routes and by post still indicate an increase. It indicates the successful measures
of law enforment to prevent the narcotics coming into Indonesia. But on the
other hand, regardless of the fact that the drugs are meant for personal use or
for re-selling, it shows that the supervision and the regulations in controlling
narcotics abuse and illicit trafficking are not effective enough to cause a
deterrent effect.
c. Prisoners and Detainees Related to Drug Cases all over Indonesia from
Minister of Justice and Human Rights RI, 2015-2017

Diagram 4.14. Total Total Prisoners and Detainees of Drug Cases all over
Indonesia by Province, 2015 – 2017

Papua 235 35 52
West Papua 16 146 18
Maluku Utara 63 69 7
Maluku 90 152 158
East Nusa Tenggara 25 12 39
West Nusa Tenggara 112 175 281
Bali 527 794 1,521
S.E. Sulawesi 307 442 417
West Sulawesi 165 247 164
South Sulawesi 2,132 3,408 3,375
Central Sulawesi 234 138 211
Gorontalo 15 71 104
North Sulawesi 10 38 168
East Kalimantan 2,732 6,037 6,638
South Kalimantan 2,283 3,759 4,626
Central Kalimantan 651 1 1,120
West Kalimantan 1,208 1,404 1,629
East Java 3,701 436 9,575
Central Java 2,378 2,819 4,274
DI Yogyakarta 264 309 298
West Java 6,559 8,623 9,798
DKI Jakarta 13,027 11,699 11,067
Banten 3,443 4,187 3,477
Bengkulu 515 518 550
Lampung 1,299 2,158 367
Bangka Belitung 687 742 922
South Sumatera 3,072 4,173 3,617
Jambi 1,247 1,665 1,597
Riau 363 3,641 3,944
Kepulauan Riau 1,586 2,038 2,538
West Sumatera 1,353 1,392 1,154
North Sumatera 6,835 12,968 11,631
Aceh 1,923 2,287 2,921

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2016 2017

Source : Directorate General of Correctional Institutions, Ministry of Justice and Human
Rights RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 193
 In 2017, the largest number of Prisoners and Detainees of drug cases is
dominated by the province of North Sumatera (11,631), or a percentage of
13.18%, followed by DKI Jakarta (11,067), or 12,54%; next comes West Java
(9,798) or 11.10%.

Diagram 4.15. Total Prisoners and Detainees of Drug Cases All over Indonesia
Based on Type Crime, Syndicate/Dealer and Drug User by
Province, 2016 – 2017

Papua 23 12 36 16
West Papua 137 9 18 0
North Maluku 65 4 3 4
Maluku 38 114 29 129
East Nusa Tenggara 2 10 4 35
West Nusa Tenggara 106 69 206 75
Bali 533 261 1,011 510
S.E. Sulawesi 305 137 253 164
West Sulawesi 193 54 119 45
South Sulawesi 1,765 1,643 1,731 1,644
Central Sulawesi 15 123 0 211
Gorontalo 0 71 0 104
North Sulawesi 10 28 102 66
East Kalimantan 3,840 2,197 5,804 834
South Kalimantan 2,692 1,067 3,855 771
Central Kalimantan 595 405 692 428
West Kalimantan 666 738 664 965
East Java 1,162 3,198 4,811 4,764
Central Java 1,940 879 3,270 1,004
DI Yogyakarta 169 140 168 130
West Java 7,236 1,387 6,152 3,646
DKI Jakarta 7,998 3,701 4,646 6,421
Banten 1,857 2,330 1,477 2,000
Bengkulu 427 91 423 127
Lampung 1,311 847 2,300 1,370
Bangka Belitung 632 110 761 161
South Sumatera 2,920 1,253 2,697 920
Jambi 1,201 464 1,253 344
Riau 3,019 622 2,909 1,035
Kepulauan Riau 1,464 574 2,103 435
West Sumatera 784 608 696 458
North Sumatera 8,596 4,372 7,372 4,259
Aceh 1,368 919 1,701 1,220
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2016 DRUG SYNDICATE/DEALER 2016 DRUG ABUSER

2017 DRUG SYNDICATE/DEALER 2017 DRUG ABUSER

Source : Directorate General of Correctional Institutions, Ministry of Justice and Human

Rights RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 194
 Diagram 4.16. Total Prisoners and Detainees of Drug Cases all over Indonesia,
2015 – 2017
100,000 91,561
90,000 81,506
80,000
70,000 62,324
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
-
2015 2016 2017

Source : Directorate General of Correctional Institutions, Ministry of Justice & Human Rights
RI, March 2018

In line with the increasing number of drug cases and arrested suspects, the
number of prisoners and detainees also goes up. As a result, the impact of
limited space in prisons is greaatly felt. It isnecessary to consider and review
alternative sanctions besides putting drug abusers in prison (except for
syndicates and drug dealers).

Diagram 4.17. Total Prisoners and Detainees of Drug Cases all over Indonesia
Based on crime classification as Syndicate/Dealer and Drug
Abuser, 2016 – 2017

100,000 91,561
90,000 81,506
80,000
70,000 57,266
60,000 53,069
50,000
34,295
40,000 28,437
30,000
20,000
10,000
-
2016 2017
Drug Syndicate/Dealer Drug Abuser Total
Source : Directorate General of Correctional Institutions, Ministry of Justice & Human Rights
RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 195
 Along with the increase of prisoners and detainees of drug cases, detained
drug users and syndicates/dealers also escalate. However, the proportion of
drug dealers/syndicates and drug abusers in prison remains stable, i.e. 2:1.
However, with the larger number of drug dealers than drug abusers in prison, it
is very likely that drug transactions may be made in prison, which the related
officers should be aware of, since this is a condition that may bring ill effect to
drug abusers in prison, since they are at high risk of getting a higher level of drug
addiction.

2. Demand Reduction
a. Drug Abusers Making Access to Rehabilitatio Services and getting
support at Rehabilitation Facilities, 2015 – 2017 and Drug abusers getting
treatment at BNN Rehabilitation Center, from BNN, 2015 – 2017.

1) Drug Abusers Making Access to Rehabilitation Services and getting

Support, 2015 – 2017

Diagram 4.18. Total Drug Abusers Based on Gender, 2015– 2017

25000.0
Male Female Total

19882.0
20000.0
18311.0
17415.0
16185.0

15000.0

10000.0

5000.0
2467.0

- - - -
-
2015 2016 2017

Source : BNN Deputy of Rehabilitation, March 2018

Registration of rehabilitation patients according to gender in 2016 and

2017 is very minimum, but data in 2015 indicates that male patients are greater
in number than females. The estimation is that this trend remains the same in
2016 and 2017. Indeed, female patients are less than male patients, but the
acceleration in drug abuse from experimental use up to drug addiction is very
fast, and usually its effect is also much more severe than among males.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 196
 Diagram 4.19. Total Drug Abusers Based on Age Group, 2015 – 2017
18000

16,554
16,185
<15 Years 15-20 Years
16000
21-25 Years 26-30 Years
14000 31-35 Years 36-39 Years
12000 >40 Years Not Recorded
10000
8000 4,253
4,199
3,505
6000

3,164

1,977
1,910
4000
874

2000

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
2015 2016 2017
Source : BNN Deputy of Rehabilitation, March 2018

Registration of rehabilitation patients based on age is also very scarce in

2016 and 2017, but taken the data of 2015 the largest number of rehabilitation
patients is among 15-20 years, followed by the group of 21–25 years. The
estimation is that this tend remains the same in 2016 and 2017, since drug
dealers still make the productive years as their target.

2) Drug Abusers Receiving Treatment at BNN Rehabilitation Center,

2015 – 2017

Diagram 4.20. Total Drug Abusers at BNN Rehabilitation Center Based on

Gender, 2015 – 2017

1,854
2,000
1,800
1,600
1,400 1,130
1,200 924
1,000
800
600
400
82 103 58
200
-
2015 2016 2017

Male Female
Source : BNN Rehabilitation Center, March 2017

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 197
 In general, the number of male patients making access to rehabilitation
services at BNN Rehabilitation Center is relatively greater than female patients.

Diagram 4.21. Total Drug Abusers at BNN Rehabilitation Center Based on Age
Group, 2015 – 2017

470
500

427
450

381
357
400
350
297
289
300

244
239

213
250

195
188

186

166
200
118

110

104
150
72

100

33
17
50

-
9
9

-
0
2015 2016 2017

<15 Years 15-20 Years 21-25 Years 26-30 Years

31-35 Years 36-40 Years >41 Years Not Recorded

Source : BNN Rehabilitation Center, March 2018

During the past three years the proportion of rehabilitation patients based
on age group remains stable. In general, the largest number of patients making
access to BNN Rehabilitation Center is in the age group of 20 – 25 years, followed
by the age group 26- 30 years.

Diagram 4.22. Total Drug Abusers at BNN Rehabilitation Center Based on

Education, 2015 – 2017
1209.0

1400.0 Elementary School

Junior High School
Senior High School
1200.0 Diploma
S1
1000.0 S2
750.0

Not School
Not Graduating School
623.0

800.0 Not Recorded

600.0
317.0

217.0

400.0
152.0

139.0

139.0
132.0

128.0
93.0

63.0
61.0

200.0
40.0

45.0
10.0

8.0
7.0

6.0

5.0
3.0
2.0

2.0
-
-

-
-

-
2015 2016 2017

Source : Balai Besar Rehabilitasi BNN, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 198
 In the past three years the total patients who have accessed rehabilitation
at BNN Rehabilitation Center are from Senior High School.

Diagram 4.23. Total Drug Abusers at BNN Rehabilitation Center Based on Type
Drug Used, 2015 – 2017

1574.0
1600.0
1400.0 1110.0

905.0
1200.0
1000.0
800.0
481.0

443.0
302.0
600.0

295.0
225.0
215.0

152.0
400.0

98.0
93.0

79.0
70.0

42.0

44.0
1.0

1.0
200.0
2.0
-

-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-
2015 2016 2017
Opiate Methamphetamine Amphetamine
THC Benzodiazepine Barbiturate
Cocaine Multiple Drug Cathinone
MDMA Other
Source : BNN Rhabilitation Center, March 2018

In the past three years the largest number of patients making access to
BNN Rehabilitation Center belong to abusers suffering from methamphetamine
addiction, followed by abusers of THC/cannabis/ganja.

b. Injecting Drug Users (IDUs) and HIV/AIDS Cases from Ministry of Health
RI, 2015 – 2017

Diagram 4.24. Total Cumulative AIDS Cases Based on Gender, 2015- 2017

700 637
568
600
470
500
400 310
283 286
300
200
100 0 5 1
0
2015 2016 2017

Male Female Not Know

Source : Directorate General of PP & PL, Minisitry of Health RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 199
 In the past 3 years, the total of AIDS cases continues to increase, in the
group of males as well as females, but the proportion between males and
females remains relatively stable 2 (males) : 1 (females).

Diagram 4.25. Total Cumulative AIDS Cases Based on Risk Factor, 2015- 2017

7974.0

7574.0
8000.0

6390.0
7000.0

6000.0

5000.0

4000.0

1894.0
1542.0
3000.0

2000.0
503.0

391.0
368.0
340.0

253.0
248.0

192.0
184.0
178.0

150.0
101.0

95.0
61.0
55.0

48.0

39.0
26.0
19.0
16.0

1000.0

-
2015 2016 2017

Heterosex IDU Homosex Prenatal Bisex Transfution Etc Not Know

Source : Directorate General of PP & PL Ministry of Health RI, March 2018

During the past three years AIDS Cases in the group of heterosex continues
to go down, but on the other hand the group of homosex increases. AIDS cases
among IDUs remains stable. Although there was an increase in 2016, but in 2017
it went down.

Diagram 4.26. Total Cumulative AIDS Cases Based on Age Group, 2015- 2017
338.0

400.0
312.0
302.0

350.0

300.0
232.0
215.0

209.0
189.0

250.0
181.0

200.0
127.0

150.0
92.0
78.0
65.0

100.0
30.0
23.0
19.0
19.0

18.0
17.0

13.0
11.0
10.0

10.0

50.0
9.0

8.0
7.0

7.0

7.0
4.0

4.0

4.0

-
2015 2016 2017
< 1 Tahun 1 – 4 Years 5 – 14 Years 15 – 19 Years 20 – 29 Years
30 – 39 Years 40 – 49 Years 50 – 59 Years > 60 Years Not Know

Source : Directorate General of PP & PL Ministry of Health RI, March 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 200
 In the past three years, the total Cases of AIDS continues to increase in
almost all age groups, but the proportion remains relatively the same. Every year
the group 30-39 years has the largest number of AIDS cases, followed by the age
group 20 – 29 years.

c. Data of BNN Contact Center, 2015 – 2017.

1) Data of BNN Contact Center Based on Type of Information,
2015 – 2017.
Diagram 4.27. Total Information Rceived by BNN Contact Center Based on
Type of Information, 2015 – 2017

4,855
5000.0

4500.0

4000.0

3500.0 2,934
2,917

3000.0

2,542
2,421

2,302
2500.0

2000.0

1500.0
684

1000.0
424

313
170
166

500.0
160
58

55
48
47

45
27

-
2015 2016 2017

Prevention Rehabilitation Eradication

Data & Info Public Relation General Information
Dumas Ittama

In the past three years, information on rehabilitation is declining.

Along with the increase of rehabilitation patients conclusion is made that
socialization of information on the rehabilitation locations and its process
of rehabilitation have been well implemented. Information on Eradication
of drug abuse is relatively stable, the community tends to care for its
environment and continue to report drug abuse and illicit trafficking in
their environment to BNN Contact Center.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 201
 2) Data of BNN Contact Center Based on Source of Information,
2015–2017.
Diagram 4.28. Total Information Received by BNN Contact Center Source
of Information Contact Center, 2015 – 2017

4,500

4,000 3,814 3,801

3,500

3,000 2,856
2,692

2,500
2,184
2,000 1,804
1,488
1,500
1,030
1,000
593 610
500 217 215
125 157
- 7 - 8 1 19 2
-
2015 2016 2017
Call SMS E-mail
Voicemail Whatsapp Blackberry Messenger
Facebook Walk In

Source : BNN Center of Data Research and Information, March 2018

In the past three years . lesser information is coming ini through SMS. On
the other hand, information through Whatsapp continues to increase, which is
in accordance with the technological progress. People prefer to use Whatsapp
and leave SMS. Besides, information coming in through email, voice mail,
Facebook and Walk-in is continuously escalating. Also information by phone is
relatively stable. Since so much information is received and continues to
increase in 2017, one may conclude that the community still appreciates the
presence of the National Narcotics Board, and care to participate in dealing with
drug and illicit trafficking in their environment.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 202
 This Chapter will discuss the data on Prevention and Eradication of Drug
Abuse implemented by the National Narcotics Board. These data to be presented
originate from the SIN system (Drug Information) that is spread out in 34 Provinces of
Indonesia. Data input is conducted by operators in BNN Province and BNN
Regency/City.

1. BNN Data on Eradication

From data collected by Center of Data Research and Information
(Puslitdatin) through the system spread out in 34 Provinces, 540 drug cases have
been settled by BNN, including 13 cases of money laundering in the first
semester of 2018. Cases related to Shabu remain the largest in number (426),
and the most had been handled by North Sumatera BNN Province.

Diagram 5.1 Percentage of Suspects Total suspects (784) were

Based on Gender handled by BNN. Male suspects are
the largest in number (712), and (72)
FEMALES
9% female suspects were involved in drug
crimes. Most of the suspects are
above 30 years (407), there are some
suspects under 15 years, although very
few. From arrested suspects 60% have
MALES passed Senior High School. Based on
91%
occupation, workers in the private
sector and entrepreneurs dominate
this part. Looking at their educational
background, suspects have sufficient
understanding on drugs. In regard
with their occupation, due to their association and life style suspects became
perpetrators of drug crimes.
BNN has made quite many seizures in the first semester of 2018. Cannabis
was the largest amount seized (807,318.05 gr). The second largest seizure is
shabu (676,522.34 gr). These findings should be investigated, especially
concerning shabu seizures. It may be assumed that the performance of law
enforcement becomes increasingly better, or it may be possible that shabu is
available in such a large amount in the drug market that drug abusers have easy
access on the drug. Equivalent with the many cases, the Province of North
Sumatera has the largest number of Cannabis seizures. (87%) were seized by
BNNP North Sumatera. The largest seizures of Shabu occurred in Jambi made
by BNNP Jambi, as is presented in the following Table.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 203
Table 5.1. Drug Cases Handled by BNN in Semester 1, 2018

CASES

AMP COM- CON-

NO. PROVINCE CLAN- CANNA MONEY N/K
HE- CARISO- ECSTA- MON TROLL-
DESTIN BIS/ SHABU LAUN-
TAMI PRODOL SY MEDI- ED HARD
E LAB GANJA DERING
NES CINES DRUGS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Aceh 2 16 18
2. Bangka Belitung 1 6 7
3. Bali 11 2 26 39
4. Banten 2 2
5. Bengkulu 7 7
6. DKI Jakarta 3 2 12 17
7. Gorontalo 5 6 3 14
8. West Java 7 9 16
9. Jambi 1 9 10
10. Central Java 1 8 9
11. East Java 1 2 23 26
12. West 1 9 10
Kalimantan
13. South 1 1 28 1 1 32
Kalimantan
14. North 17 17
Kalimantan
15. Central 16 16
Kalimantan
16. East Kalimantan 2 1 34 37
17. Riau Islands 1 1 22 24
18. Lampung 1 7 8
19. Maluku 2 5 7
20. North Maluku 1 4 5
21. West Nusa 1 3 4
Tenggara
22. East Nusa 1 1
Tenggara
23. West Papua 1 4 5
24. Papua 13 8 21
25. Central BNN 1 21 11 33
26. Riau 2 4 17 23
27. West Sulawesi 4 4
28. South Sulawesi 3 12 1 16
29. Central Slawesi 2 16 18
30. S.E. Sulawesi 1 9 10
31. West Sumatera 2 2
32. South Sumatera 1 1 23 25
33. North Sumatera 2 9 4 35 50
34. DI Yogyakarta 7 7
Total 2 15 3 60 17 426 3 1 13 540

Source : National Narcotic Board, August 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 204
 Table 5.2. Suspects of Drug Cases Handled by BNN in Semester 1 of 2018 Based on
Nationality, Age and Education
SUSPECTS
DO- FO-
AGE EDUCATION
MESTIC REIGN
E U
L N D
E I R
NO. PROVINCE M V O
JUNI- SENI- NO
≤ 15 16-19 20-24 25-29 ≥ 30 E E P
M F M F N/K OR OR SCHOO- N/K
YRS YRS YRS YRS YRS N R
HIGH HIGH LING
T S O
A I U
R T T
Y Y
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Aceh 24 1 1 3 4 14 1 3 19 2 -
2. Bangka Belitung 8 1 2 5 1 7
3. Bali 29 2 1 8 10 24 1 1 9 29 4
2
4. Banten 4 4 1 2 1
5. Bengkulu 14 1 4 3 8 2 12 1
6. DKI Jakarta 18 3 6 4 11 21
7. Gorontalo 11 7 1 1 2 1 9 4 1 5 8 4 -
8. West Java 22 3 1 7 5 11 1 2 7 13 2 1 -
9. Jambi 13 2 8 7 15 -
10. Central Java 13 2 3 4 8 5 10
11. East Java 33 3 6 6 20 4 9 8 11 1 7 -
12. West 23 1 3 3 2 6 16 4 5 8 1 7 2
Kalimantan
13. South 38 2 1 2 9 27 1 8 13 17 2 -
Kalimantan
14. North 21 3 4 7 8 5 2 3 11 1 1 6
Kalimantan
15. Central 16 3 4 3 12 1 7 6 3 2
Kalimantan
16. EastKalimantan 19 4 3 20 - 12 5 4 1 1 -
17. RiauIslands 35 2 3 1 3 6 30 1 27 1 11
18. Lampung 17 2 1 3 14 1 1 6 11 1
19. Maluku 9 1 2 5 3 5 2 3
20. North Maluku 8 2 2 4 8
21. West Nusa 5 5 2 1 2
Tenggara
22. East Nusa - -
Tenggara
23. West Papua 6 1 2 2 1 6
24. Papua 22 1 3 3 2 2 14 5 7 7 11 1
25. Central BNN 55 7 5 1 6 6 27 29 1 46 6 15
26. Riau 27 9 1 4 8 20 3 3 9 21 1 2
27. West Sulawesi 13 1 1 4 7 1 7 2 3
28. South Sulawesi 22 3 1 3 3 14 4 2 7 15 1
29. Central 30 5 1 7 4 23 - 1 1 31 1 1 -
Sulawesi
30. S.E. Silawesi 13 1 3 9 2 1 7 3
31. West Sumatera 2 1 1 1 1
32. South Sumatera 30 2 7 4 14 7 7 8 15 1 1
33. North Sumatera 77 4 1 2 8 13 37 20 10 11 59 1
34. DI Yogyakarta 8 1 1 6 3 5
Total 685 71 27 1 5 15 97 127 407 133 85 124 469 34 20 10 42
Source : National Narcotics Board, August 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 205
Table 5.3. Suspects of Drug Cases Handled by BNN in Semester 1 of 2018 Based on
Occupation
SUSPECTS
OCCUPATION
S P D
PRI-
NO. PROVINCE E UN- O R AR- EN-
UNIV. FIS- PRI- SCHOOL CIVIL VA-
LABO- A EM- L I FAR- MED TRE- N/
STU- HER- SO- STU- SER- TE
RER M PLO- I V MER FOR- PRE- K
DENT MAN NER DENT VANT SEC-
A YED C E CES NEUR
TOR
N E R
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. Aceh 1 1 1 2 1 4 3 11 -
2. Bangka 1 1 4 2
Belitungl
3. Bali 2 3 1 1 18 18
4. Banten 1 3
5. Bengkulu 2 1 11 1
6. DKI Jakarta 1 1 1 11 7
7. Gorontalo 1 1 1 2 10 3 -
8. West Java 4 1 1 5 3 11 -
9. Jambi 15 -
10. Central 3 2 1 8 1
Java
11. East Java 5 1 4 1 13 2 10 -
12. West 5 2 1 2 10 1 6
Kalimantan
13. South 10 7 2 8 1 12 -
Kalimantan
14. North 1 2 4 9 1 1 6
Kalimantan
15. Central 2 14 3
Kalimantan
16. East 2 1 11 8 1 -
Kalimantan
17. Riau Islands 1 2 20 6 11
18. Lampung 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 7
19. Maluku 1 1 3 5
20. North 1 2 5
Maluku
21. West Nusa 1 1 1 1 1
Tenggara
22. East Nusa -
Tenggara
23. WestPapua 2 2 2
24. Papua 1 1 2 12 1 6 1 2
25. Central 5 6 1 1 29 1 20 5
BNN
26. Riau 4 3 6 1 1 7 1 13
27. West 1 2 2 8
Sulawesi
28. South 6 2 1 5 11
Sulawesi
29. Central 1 5 1 5 1 1 14 2 5 -
Sulawesi
30. S.E. 2 2 2 1 6
Sulawesi
31. West 2
Sumatera
32. South 2 1 2 1 12 2 1 11
Sumatera
33. North 1 1 2 20 3 53 1
Sumatera
34. DI 1 5 2
Yogyakarta
Total 56 20 6 15 13 1 73 16 5 13 272 17 2 247 28

Source : National Narcotics Boaard, August 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 206
Table 5.4. Drug Evidence Handled by BNN in Semester 1 of 2018
EVIDENCE
CANNA CANNA- CANNA-
AMPHE- CARISO- ARE-
NO. PROVINCE BIS BIS SHABU BIS ECSTASY
TAMINES PRODOL AL
SEEDS HEERBS TREES
GRAM GRAM BUTIR GRAM TAB GRAM HA TREES TAB GRAM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Aceh 51.50 76.10
2. Bangka 60.59 7.20 75.00
Belitung
3. Bali 9,415.85 1,071.25 149.00 1.75
4. Banten 7.18
5. Bengkulu 72.95 2,735.68 3.00
6. DKI Jakarta 37,031.01 768.83 2,692.00
7. Gorontalo 0.87
8. West Java 2,157.04 373.59 59.00
9. Jambi 7.60 15.00 292,562.75 3.00
10. Central Java 6,286.11 9.00
11. East Java 31,666.00 18,534.02
12. West 58,721.26 4,629.00
Kalimantan
13. South 1,594.74
Kalimantan
14. North 1,234.56
Kalimantan
15. Central 1,704.16 63.00
Kalimantan
16. East 0.34 1,501.66 251.00
Kalimantan
17. Riau Islands 8.35 26,556.67 1.06
18. Lampung 12,519.10 1,373.00 1,845.35
19. Maluku 1.67 0.10
20. North Maluku 94.66 1.01
21. WestNusa 19,290.0 7.30
Tenggara 0
22. East Nusa -
Tenggara
23. West Papua 1.61 1.92
24. Papua 1,261.36 66.86 4.00
25. Central BNN 232,235.28 100,694.00
26. Riau 81.10 7,901.04 168.00
27. West 0.49
Sulawesi
28. South 3,224.00 97.38
Sulawesi
29. Central 65,379.00 651.16
Sulawesi
30. S.E.Sulawesi 820.00 1,639.83
31. West 18.08 22.72 -
Sumatera
32. South 3.15 5,523.73 36.00 2.33
Sumatera
33. North 705,325.54 2,019.80 2.50 1,946.00 15,540.00
Sumatera
34. DI Yogyakarta 120.71
Total 65,433.99 18.08 3,224.00 807,318.05 15.00 676,522.34 2.50 1,950.00 125,744.00 1,850.49

Source : National Naarcotics Board, August 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 207
2. Data BNN on Rehabilitation
Data is accomplished from integration with BNN Deputy of Rehabilitation
system. Registration is conducted on inpatient rehabilitation, outpatient
rehabilitation and post rehabilitation at government rehabilitation facilities. The
following Table presents data from January to June 2018.
Table 5.5. Rehabilitated Patients by BNN in Semeter 1 of 2018

REHABILITATED PATIENTS
NO. PROVINCE TOTAL
INPATIENT OUTPATIENT POST REHAB
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Bali - 101 - 101
2. Banten - 10 2 12
3. Bengkulu - 15 - 15
4. DI Yogyakarta 1 11 6 18
5. DKI Jakarta - 272 47 319
6. Gorontalo - 32 21 53
7. Jambi - 255 1 256
8. West Java 362 61 7 430
9. Central Java - 12 3 15
10. East Java - 59 - 59
11. West Kalimantan - 47 1 48
12. South Kalimantan - 160 - 160
13. CentralKalimantan - 2 10 12
14. East Kalimantan 113 17 11 141
15. Bangka Belitung - 86 - 86
16. Riau Islands 87 36 17 140
17. Lampung 57 48 14 119
18. Maluku - 2 - 2
19. North Maluku - 31 - 31
20. Aceh 1 28 7 36
21. West Nusa Tenggara - 22 20 42
22. East Nusa Tenggara - 16 - 16
23. Papua - 33 - 33
24. West Papua - 5 1 6
25. Riau - 2 26 28
26. West Sulawesi - 3 1 4
27. South Sulawesi 169 171 37 377
28. Central Sulawesi - 56 - 56
29. S.E.Sulawesi - 44 - 44
30. North Sulawesi - 65 6 71
31. West Sumatera - 61 - 61
32. South Sumatera - 127 15 142
33. North Sumatera 31 138 28 197
Total 821 2,028 281 3,130

Source : National Narcotics Board, August 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 208
3. Data BNN on Prevention
P4GN consists of 2 (two) parts: Advocacy and Information Dissemination.
Dissemination of Information is implemented through various media, while
advocacy is to advocate manpower, community and Education.

Table 5.6. BNN Activities of Information Dissemination in Semeter 1 of 2018

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
BROADCAST CONVENTIONAL
ONLINE MEDIA PRINTED MEDIA
MEDIA MEDIA
NO. PROVINCE
TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL
ACTI- TTL VIEWERS ACTI- VIE- ACTI- CIRCU- ACTI- PARTI-
VITIES VITIES WERS VITIES LATION VITIES CIPANTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Aceh 6 6 19 30 3,572
2 Bangka Belitung 4 3,035,372 4 4 3 49 5,898
3 Bali 26 103,517 55 54 44 1,000 109 13,072
4 Banten 1 1 63
5 Bengkulu 84 2,748 6 6 39 26 2,187
6 DKI Jakarta 47 29 7,261
7 Gorontalo 13 12 24 3,000 10 1,850
8 West Java 71 16,014 15 15 10 149 17,448
9 Jambi 1 100 4 6 1 40
10 Central Java 19 2,018,872 17 23 9 323 46,280
11 East Java 454 46,000,178,318 190 187 157 1,000 543 125,285
12 West Kalimantan 2 7 7 3 42 4,364
13 South 221 73,335 7 7 9 68 10,221
Kalimantan
14 North 25 4,783
Kalimantan
15 Central 2 12 2,869
Kalimantan
16 East Kalimantan 7 21 21 2 120 38,175
17 Riau Islands 21 997 102 100 4 2,048 34 12,435
18 Lampung 4 5 6 11,971
19 Maluku 8 721
20 North Maluku 1 1 4 154
21 West Nusa 9 50,268 12 12 20 2,152 61 10,215
Tenggara
22 East Nusa 5 5 7 5 20 2,068
Tenggara
23 West Papua 9 351 3 3 8 320
24 Papua 2 2 3 15 1,250
25 Central BNN
26 Riau 6 206 3 3 3 19 3,105
27 West Sulawesi 15 348 1
28 South Sulawesi 4 201 11 19 6 12 947
29 Central Sulawesi 5 96 1 3 32 115 8,878
30 S.E. Sulawesi 22 1,375
31 North Sulawesi 10 1,000 4 5 28 2,696
32 West Sumatera 6 47,985 25 1,626
33 South Sumatera 13 1,235 6 6 25 94 10,419
34 North Sumatera 9 140,830 46 45 20 17,815 357 45,581
35 DI Yogyakarta 9 9 12 2,380
Total 990 46,005,623,808 555 566 495 75,005 2,377 399,509

Source : BNN, August 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 209
Table 5.7. BNN Advocacy Activities (Coordination Meetings, Build Assistance
Network, Strengthening Assistance and Intervention) Semester 1 of 2018
ADVOCACY
STRENGTHE-
COORD. INTERVEN-
BUILD NETWORKING ASSISTANCE NING
MEETINGS TION
ASSISTANCE
NO. PROVINCE
TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL
TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL
PAR- PAR- PAR- PAR- PAR-
ACTI- ACTI- AGEN- ACTI- ACTI- ACTI-
TICI- TICI- TICI- TICI- TICI-
VITIES VITIES CIES VITIES VITIES VITIES
PANTS PANTS PANTS PANTS PANTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Aceh 26 453 26 26 18 30
2. Bangka Belitung 2 40 3 5 25 2
3. Bali 41 337 4 75
4. Banten
5. Bengkulu 52 453 1 1 1 23
6. DKI Jakarta 84 537 13 13 2
7. Gorontalo 2 165 3 3 1
8. West Java 19 130 3 1 30
9. Jambi 5 18 1 7
10. Central Java 14 56 35 34 40 2 60
11. East Java 183 1,586 43 58 1,360 13 35
12. West 11 325 5 5 7
Kalimantan
13. South 37 233 9 10 2 13 34
Kalimantan
14. North 3 38 1 3
Kalimantan
15. Central
Kalimantan
16. East Kalimantan 5 25 1 1 2
17. Riau Islands 4 36 3 4 5 30
18. Lampung 6 73 1 1 2
19. Maluku 1 1
20. North Maluku 3 135 2
21. West Nusa 14 64 16 21 60 5 15 1 -
Tenggara
22. East Nusa 3 55 1 1 3 1 500
Tenggara
23. West Papua 4 28
24. Papua 4 7 2 2 2
25. Central BNN 3 207 5 5 6 3 1,885
26. Riau 4 133 1 1 1
27. West Sulawesi
28. South Slaawesi 5 35 1 1 7 6 1 10
29. Central 21 280 3 5 3
Sulawesi
30. S.E. Sulawesi
31. North Sulawesi 10 215 1 30 1 1 4
32. West Sumatera 1 15 5 4 141
33. South Sumatera 9 101 4 40
34. North Sumatera 66 263 6 54
35. DI Yogyakarta 7 70 4 100
Total 648 6,113 185 208 1,617 118 520 4 37 5 2,415

Source : BNN, August 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 210
Table 5.8. BNN Advocacy Activities (Supervision, Monitoring/Evaluation, Technical
Guidance and Socialization/KIE) in Semester 1 of 2018
ADVOCACY
MONITORING/ TECHNICAL
SUPERVISION SOCIALIZATION/ KIE
EVALUATION GUIDANCE
NO. PROVINCE
TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL
ACTI- PARTI- ACTI- PARTI- ACTI- PARTI- ACTI- PARTI-
VITIES CIPANTS VITIES CIPANTS VITIES CIPANTS VITIES CIPANTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Aceh 107 12,008
2. Bangka 112 16,591
Belitung
3. Bali 163 43,837
4. Banten 16 3,226
5. Bengkulu 43 2,286
6. DKI Jakarta 3 3 217 2 135 32 12,352
7. Gorontalo 40 6,046
8. West Java 2 1 135 96 15,688
9. Jambi 131 29,401
10. Central 2 110 115 15,342
Java
11. East Java 7 5 1 60 1 30 316 54,084
12. West 2 - 51 4,587
Kalimantan
13. South 168 29,572
Kalimantan
14. North 23 2,576
Kalimantan
15. Central 1 40
Kalimantan
16. East 13 3,125
Kalimantan
17. Riau Islands 1 10 1 20 87 18,000
18. Lampung 1 146 28,978
19. Maluku 45 6,571
20. North 44 3,659
Maluku
21. West Nusa 157 23,783
Tenggara
22. East Nusa 9 2,663 30 3,126
Tenggara
23. West Papua 17 2,385
24. Papua 83 10,056
25. Central BNN 1 121 18 2,712
26. Riau 130 21,340
27. West 43 4,417
Sulawesi
28. South 226 43,501
Sulawesi
29. Central 127 33,412
Sulawesi
30. S.E.
Sulawesi
31. North 122 30,819
Sulawesi
32. West
Sumatera
33. South 12 26 1,881 23 2,772
Sumatera
34. North 9 16 2,539
Sumatera
35. DI 72 5,274
Yogyakarta
Total 34 5 42 4,831 8 551 2,813 494,105
Source : BNN, August 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 211
4. Data BNN on Community Empowerment
Besides its task on Prevention and Eradication of Drug Abuse and Illicit
Trafficking for P4GN activities BNN also conducts community empowerment.
There are 2 important tasks to implement. namely empower the community’s
involvement in the field of education, work and in the community itself as
presented in the following Table:

Table 5.9. Ativities of Community Involvement in Semester 1 of 2017

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
COORD.
APACITY TECHNICAL MONITORING AND
URINE TEST MEETINGS FOR
DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE EVALUATION
MAPPING
NO. PROVINCE
TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL
TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL
PAR- POSI- PAR- PAR- PAR- PAR-
ACTI- ACTI- ACTI- ACTI- AGEN- ACTI-
TICI- TIVE TICI- TICI- TICI- TICI-
VITIES VITIES VITIES VITIES CIES VITIES
PANTS PANTS PANTS PANTS PANTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Aceh 37 2,474 3 8 270 1 30 4 170
2. Bangka Belitung 12 700 - 9 269 2 40 3 97
3. Bali 35 1,383 17 6 157 1 30 3 110
4. Banten 6 286 - 1 30 2 70
5. Bengkulu 10 491 - 3 110 5 100
6. DKI Jakarta 210 11,638 - 2 70 1 20 1 1 30 2 70
7. Gorontalo 14 900 - 3 100 4 110 6 30
8. West Java 56 3,054 - 14 420 13 724 5 167
9. Jambi 3 110
10. Central Java 57 4,376 1 4 95 2 60 4 120
11. East Java 95 7,065 - 22 1,244 3 105
12. West 47 1,829 6 28 670 5 180
Kalimantan
13. South 49 4,133 6 5 79 3 88
Kalimantan
14. North 9 372 - 17 1,175 2 80
Kalimantan
15. Central 6 243 2 4 130 1 20 1 40
Kalimantan
16. East Kalimantan 8 905 2 5 160 1 40
17. Riau Islands 20 1,846 5 3 100 3 25 4 4 27 1 34
18. Lampung 10 717 3 4 105 1 17 3 35
19. Maluku 12 1,368 - 4 150
20. North Maluku 26 995 - 5 360 1 40
21. West Nusa 32 1,516 - 14 396 3 3 4 140
Tenggara
22. East Nusa 18 1,034 - 4 126 9 553 2 39
Tenggara
23. Papua 13 1,417 14 5 190 3 100
24. Papua Barat 9 726 - 3 107 1 40
25. Central BNN 43 8,961 1 2 78 2 67 9 485
26. Riau 16 1,908 18 12 451 1 0 2 80
27. West Sulawesi 9 428 4 2 60
28. South Sulawesi 54 3,719 1 9 270 1 40 2 55
29. Central Sulawesi 33 2,075 18 12 530 3 80 3 105
30. S.E. Sulawesi 93 1,019 -
31. North Sulawesi 4 129 - 4 215 2 52
32. West Sumatera 10 529 - 4 115 1 12
33. South Sumatera 18 1,016 - 11 295 2 70
34. North Sumatera 833 13,844 82 15 433 4 140
35. DI Yogyakarta 1 2 - 9 330 5 190
Total 1,905 83,098 183 253 9,290 46 1,856 8 8 57 96 3,154

Source : BNN, August 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 212
 Another task of Community empowerment is Alternative Development as is
presented in the Table hereunder. The activity is synergy with government agencies,
community agencies and education. Most of the ativities are conducted by Central
BNN.

Table 5.10. Activities of Community Involvement in Semester 1 of 2018

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
CHANGE IN VULNE- MONITO-
CHANF IN COORD.
FUNCTION OF RABLE RING/EVA-
PROFE- MEETINGS
CANNABIS AREAS LUATION ON SYNERGY
SSION/ FOR
CULTIVATION TO VULNERABLE
NO. PROVINCE BUSINESS MAPPING
AREAS DRUGS AREAS
TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL
TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL TTL
PAR- PAR- PAR- PAR- PAR-
ACTI- ACTI- ACTI- ACTI- ACTI- ACTI-
TICI- TICI- TICI- TICI- TICI-
VITIES VITIES VITIES VITIES VITIES VITIES
PANTS PANTS PANTS PANTS PANTS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Aceh 2 110
2. Bangka Belitung
3. Bali 1
4. Banten
5. Bengkulu 2
6. DKI Jakarta 2 60
7. Gorontalo
8. West Java 1 20 2 80
9. Jambi
10. Central Java 1 14
11. East Java 3 295
12. West 1
Kalimantan
13. South
Kalimantan
14. North
Kalimantan
15. Central 1 12
Kalimantan
16. East Kalimantan 14 69
17. Riau Islands 3
18. Lampung 1 7 1 40
19. Maluku
20. North Maluku
21. West Nusa
Tenggara
22. East Nusa
Tenggara
23. Papua 1
24. West Papua
25. Central BNN 2 28 33 864 7 269
26. Riau
27. West Sulawesi
28. South Sulawesi 3 18
29. Central 2 34 1 39
Sulawesi
30. S.E. Sulawesi
31. North Sulawesi
32. West Sumatera
33. South Sumatera 3 5 2 60
34. North Sumatera 5 61 2 60
35. DI Yogyakarta
Total 4 138 6 - 2 - - 50 1.312 34 695
Source : BNN, August 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 213
5. Data on External Reports (Overseas) .
Via BNN Indonesia is obliged to report data related to drug abuse in
Indonesia to United Nations Organizations through UNODC. Some of the reports
are the Annual Report Questionnaire (ARQ). Form C International Narcotics
Control Board (INCB), and Drug Abuse Information Network for Asia and the
Pacific (DAINAP).
Annual Report Questionnaire (ARQ) is a yearly report related to national
drug data that is designed by UNODC to be filled by the nations in the world, and
collected into an annual report called World Drug Report. Another benefit of
ARQ is to monitor and encourage the implementation of UN Conventions related
to drugs and illicit trafficking in drugs (1961; 1971; 1988). ARQ consists of 4
parts:
1. Part 1 Aspect of law and administrative agreement.
2. Part 2 Development in the implementation of Plan of action and Political
Declaration.
3. Part 3 Abuse of Drugs and its impact on health.
4. Part 4 Cultivation and Production of illegal drugs and illicit trafficking in
drugs.
INCB (International Narcotics Control Board) is an independent body that
monitors the implementation of conventions on the control of drugs. There are
several forms: Form A, P, AP, C and D. These forms are under coordination of
two institutions, BNN and Ministry of Health.
DAINAP (Drug Abuse Information Network for Asia and the Pasific) is a
form of external reporting related to drug abuse for the Asia Pacific Region,
DAINAP is filled 5 times a year. It consists of one form for the annual data, and 4
forms to be completed quarterly. The following is data of quarter 1 and 2 of
2018. They are collected by BNN and National Police as combined data.

Table 5.11. Data for DAINAP in Quarter 1 of 2018

TOTAL

SUSPECTS
TYPE OF DRUG
DOMESTIC FOREIGN
CASES EVIDENCE UNIT
FEMA- FEMA-
MALES TOTAL MALES TOTAL
LES LES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CANNABIS HERB 950 775,769.60 GRAM 1,166 25 1,191 15 1 16

CANNABIS RESIN 1 389.14 GRAM - - - 1 - 1

CANNABIS PLANTS - 2,299.00 OTHER - - - - - -

(TREES)

CANNABIS OIL - - - - - - - -

CANNABIS SEED - - - - - - - -

OPIUM - - - - - - - -

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 214
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
HEROIN 3 11.12 GRAM 2 1 3 - - -
MORPHINE 1 - - - - 1 - 1
PRESCRIPTION OPIOID - 3,514.00 - - - - - -
(TRAMADOL)
COCAINE 2 0.71 3 - 3 - - -
(SALT/POWDER)
COCAINE (CRACK) - - GRAM - - - - - -
KRATOM (LEAF) - - - - - - - -
KRATOM (LIQUID) - - - - - - - -
AMPHETAMINE 31 65,433.99 GRAM 29 5 34 1 - 1
METHAMPHETAMINE 9,344 4,257,078.86 GRAM 11,565 738 12,303 23 5 28
CRYSTAL
METHAMPHETAMINE - 15.00 TABLET - - - - - -
PILLS
METHAMPHETAMINE - 3,972.65 GRAM - - - - - -
POWDER
METHAMPHETAMINE - - - - - - - -
LIQUID
PRESCRIPTION ATS - - - - - - - -
ECSTASY 345 417,362.00 TABLET 444 38 482 1 - 1
PIPERAZINES - - - - - - - -

KETAMINE 7 8,357.61 GRAM 4 2 6 2 - 2

MEPHEDRONE - - - - - - - -
MDPV - - - - - - - -
SYNTHETIC 74 1,064.04 GRAM 85 2 87 - - -
CANNABINOIDS
BARBITURATES/GOL III 81 65,499.00 TABLET 87 5 92 - - -
BENZODIAZEPINES/ 63 2,714,00 TABLET 74 1 75 2 - 2
GOL IV
LSD 1 3.00 GRAM - - - - - -
INHALANT - - - - - - - -
OTHER DRUGS
MUSHROOM 2 587.49 GRAM 5 - 5 - - -
CONTROLLED 325 6,586,537.50 TABLET 337 30 367 - - -
MEDICINES/HARD
DRUGS
SYNTHETIC CATHINONE 2 116,000.00 GRAM 3 1 4 - - -
LL (BENZO) - 9.35 TABLET - - - - - -
ALPRAZOLAM (BENZO) - 107.00 TABLET - - - - - -
HEXYMER (BENZO) - 1,125.00 TABLET - - - - - -
- - TABLET - - - - - -
TRYHEXYFENYDIL (OBT) - 54.00 TABLET - - - - - -
CARNOPHEN (OBT) - 7,896.00 TABLET - - - - - -
DEXTRO (OB) - 2,119.00 TABLET - - - - - -
PCC (CARISOPRODOL) - 13,912.00 TABLET - - - - - -
H5 (BENZO) - 113.50 TABLET - - - - - -
SOMADRYL - 40.00 TABLET - - - - - -
(CARISOPRODOL)

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 215
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PREKURSOR - - - - - - - -

EPHEDRINE - - - - - - - -

PSEUDOEPHEDRINE - - - - - - - -

ACETIC ANHYDRIDE - - - - - - - -

PALLADIUM - - - - - - - -

THIONYL CHLORIDE - - - - - - - -

ETHYL ETHER - - - - - - - -

PMK - - - - - - - -

P-2-P - - - - - - - -

PHENYLACETIC ACID - - - - - - - -

SAFROLE-RICH OIL - - - - - - - -

COLD TABLETS - - - - - - - -

SOLVENTS - - - - - - - -

ACIDS - - - - - - - -

UNKNOWN SOLIDS - - - - - - - -

UNKNOWN LIQUIDS - - - - - - - -

OTHER PRECURSORS

CLANDESTINE LAB 2 - 4 1 5 - - -

TOTAL 11,234 13,808 849 14,657 46 6 52

Source : BNN. August 2018

Table 5.12. Data for DAINAP in Quarter 2 of 2018

TOTAL
SUSPECTS
TYPE OF DRUG DOMESTIC FOREIGN
CASES EVIDENCE UNIT
FEMA- FEMA-
MALES TOTAL MALES TOTAL
LES LES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

CANNABIS HERB 722 846,203.05 GRAM 844 24 868 21 - 21

CANNABIS RESIN - - - - - - - -

CANNABIS PLANTS - 283.00 OTHER - - - - - -

(TREES)

CANNABIS OIL - - - - - - - -

CANNABIS SEED - - - - - - - -

OPIUM - - - - - - - -

HEROIN 2 1,177.69 GRAM 3 - 3 - - -

MORPHINE - - - - - - - -

PRESCRIPTION OPIOID - 2,141.00 TABLET - - - - - -

(TRAMADOL)

COCAINE 5 17.39 GRAM 2 - 2 3 - 3

(SALT/POWDER)

COCAINE (CRACK) - - - - - - - -

KRATOM (LEAF) - - - - - - - -

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 216
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
KRATOM (LIQUID) - - - - - - - -
AMPHETAMINE - - - - - - - -
METHAMPHETAMINE 7,163 741,561.06 GRAM 8,917 556 9,473 8 2 10
CRYSTAL
METHAMPHETAMINE - - - - - - - -
PILLS
METHAMPHETAMINE - - - - - - - -
POWDER
METHAMPHETAMINE - - - - - - - -
LIQUID
PRESCRIPTION ATS - - - - - - - -
ECSTASY 293 278,084.41 TABLET 361 55 416 1 1 2
PIPERAZINES - - - - - - - -
KETAMINE - 3,022.00 GRAM - - - - - -
MEPHEDRONE - - - - - - - -
MDPV - - - - - - - -
SYNTHETIC 59 144,457.36 GRAM 78 - 78 - - -
CANNABINOIDS
BARBITURATES/GOL III 54 23,168.00 TABLET 70 5 75 - - -
BENZODIAZEPINES/ 52 2,629.00 TABLET 55 2 57 1 1 2
GOL IV
LSD - - - - - - - -

INHALANT - - - - - - - -

OTHER DRUGS

CARISOPRODOL / PCC 37 42,604.00 TABLET 33 6 39 - - -

- - - - - - - -

MUSHROOM 1 47.91 GRAM 1 - 1 - - -

CONTROLLED 462 35,523,140.80 TABLET 492 27 519 - - -

MEDICINES/HARD
DRUGS

LL - 8,513.00 TABLET - - - - - -

ALPRAZOLAM - 20.00 TABLET - - - - - -

HEXYMER - 2,654.00 TABLET - - - - - -

DEXTRO - 146.00 TABLET - - - - - -

H5 - 34,996.00 TABLET - - - - - -

SOMADRIL - 672.00 TABLET - - - - - -

PIL YY - 646.00 TABLET - - - - - -

HELXYGEN - 15.00 TABLET - - - - - -

THD - 1,160.00 TABLET - - - - - -

DIAZEPAM - 100.00 TABLET - - - - - -

PRECURSOR - - - - - - - -

EPHEDRINE - - - - - - - -

PSEUDOEPHEDRINE - - - - - - - -

ACETIC ANHYDRIDE - - - - - - - -

PALLADIUM - - - - - - - -

THIONYL CHLORIDE - - - - - - - -

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 217
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ETHYL ETHER - - - - - - - -

PMK - - - - - - - -

P-2-P - - - - - - - -

PHENYLACETIC ACID - - - - - - - -

SAFROLE-RICH OIL - - - - - - - -

COLD TABLETS - - - - - - - -

SOLVENTS - - - - - - - -

ACIDS - - - - - - - -

UNKNOWN SOLIDS - - - - - - - -

UNKNOWN LIQUIDS - - - - - - - -

OTHER PRECURSORS

TOLUENE 1 - 1 - 1 - - -

CLANDESTINE LAB 1 - - - - - - -

TOTAL 8,852 10,857 675 11,532 34 4 38

Source : BNN, August 2018

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 218
 We sincerely hope that the 2018 Journal of Data issued by Puslitdatin be made
as reference material in the planning of programs and activities. and budgeting for the
related agencies and BNN. including as a benchmark for the success and failures
encountered in the implementation of P4GN. Also to improve the knowledge and
community insight on the devekopments of the dangers of drug abuse in Indonesia

We also hope that the 2018 Journal of Data encoourage the stakeholders to be
committed and build a comprehensive and integrated synergy with the community to
fight against drug abuse and illicit trafficking in drugs in Indonesia. We are fully aware
that the task of P4GN is not only the responsibility of the government cq BNN. but
every community component has the responsibility and commitment to implement
P4GN by enhancing individual immunity and the family against drug abuse and illicit
trafficking in drugs. It is not easy since new drugs are continuously in circulation and
the modus operandi of illicit trafficking is increasingly developing not only in urban
areas but also in rural regions.

Last but not least. we wish to convey our heartfelt thanks to all parties that have
given their assistance in the completion of the data journal. May the journal be of
great benefit in the progress of P4GN in the future.

Jakarta, August 2018

Compilation Team

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 219
Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 220
Abdul-Quader, A.S., Heckathorn, D.D., McKnight, C., Bramson, H., Nemeth, C., Sabin,
K., Gallagher, K. and Des Jarlais,,D.C. Effectiveness of Respondent-Driven
Sampling for Recruiting Drug Users in New York City: Findings from a Pilot Study.
Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 83,
No. 3
BNN & Puslitkes UI. Studi Biaya Ekonomi dan Sosial Penyalahgunaan Narkoba Di
Indonesia Tahun 2004. Depok: Puslitkes UI, 2004.
BNN & Puslitkes UI. Survei Nasional Penyalahgunaan dan Peredaran Gelap Narkoba
pada Kelompok Rumah Tangga di Indonesia Tahun 2005. Depok: Puslitkes UI,
2005.
BNN & Puslitkes UI. Survei Nasional Penyalahgunaan dan Peredaran Gelap Narkoba
pada Kelompok Pelajar dan Mahasiswa di Indonesia Tahun 2006. Depok:
Puslitkes UI, 2006.
Broadhead, R. S., and Heckathorn, D. D. (1994). AIDS prevention outreach among
injection drug users: Agency problems and new approaches. Social Problems, 41,
473–495.
Broadhead, R. S., Heckathorn, D. D., Weakliem, D. L., Anthony, D. L., Madray, H., Mills,
R. J., et al. (1998). Harnessing peer networks as an instrument for AIDS
prevention: Results from a peer-driven intervention. Public Health Reports,
113(Suppl.1), 42–57.
Collins And Lapsley (2004) Economic Costs Of Alcohol And Other Drugs In The
Workplace, Section 3: Translating Research Into Practice
Collins, D.J. & Lapsley, H.M. 2004. The Costs of Tobacco, Alcohol & Illicit Drug Abuse
to Australian Society 2004/2005
Collins, D.J. & Lapsley, H.M. 2004. The costs of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug abuse
to Australian society in 2004/2005
Collins, D.J. and Lapsley, H.M. (1991). Estimating the economic costs of drug abuse.
National Campaign Against Drug Abuse Monograph Series No. 15.
Collins, D.J. and Lapsley, H.M. (1991). Estimating the economic costs of drug abuse.
National Campaign Against Drug Abuse Monograph Series No. 15.
Depkdiknas. Ikhtisar Data Pendidikan Nasional Tahun 2005/2006. Badan Penelitian
dan Pengembangan Pusat Statistik Pendidikan. 2006
DSM IV-TR. Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition text
revision. http://www.psychiatryonline.com/resourceTOC.aspx?resourceID=1
Eisner. R. 2005. Marijuana Abuse: Age of Initiation, Pleasure of Response Foreshadow
Young Adult Outcomes in NIDA Research Findings vol. 19 no. 5.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 221
Frost, S.D.W., Brouwer, K.C., Firestone Cruz, M.A., Ramos, R., Ramos, M.E., Lozada,
R.M., Magis-Rodriguez, C. and Strathdee, S.A. Respondent-Driven Sampling
ofInjection Drug Users in Two U.S.–Mexico Border Cities: Recruitment Dynamics
and Impact on Estimates of HIV and Syphilis Prevalence. Journal of Urban Health:
Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 83, No. 7
Gordon, L., Tinsley, L., Godfrey, C., Parott, S. 2006. The economic and social costs of
Class A drug use in England and Wales 2003/2004. Home Office Online Report
16/06
Heckathorn DD, Semaan S, Broadhead RS, Hughes JJ. Extensions of respondent-driven
sampling:a new approach to the study of injection drug users aged 18–25. AIDS
Behav.2002;6(1):55–67.
Heckathorn DD. Respondent driven sampling, II. Deriving population estimates from
Chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 2002;49:11–34.
Heckathorn, D. D., Broadhead, R. S., Anthony, D. L., and Weakliem,D. L. (1999). AIDS
and social networks: Prevention through network mobilization. Sociological
Focus, 32, 159–179.
Heckathorn, D.D. 2007. Extensions of Respondent-Driven Sampling: Analyzing
Continous Variables and Controlling for Differential Recruitment.
http://www.respondentdrivensampling.org
Heckathorn, D.D. Respondent-Driven Sampling: A New Approach to the Study of
Hidden Populations. Social Probl. 1997;Vol. 44 No.2.
Joewana, S. 2004. Gangguan Mental dan perilaku akibat penggunaan zat psikoaktif:
penyalahgunaan napza/narkoba. Ed.2. Jakarta: EGC
Johnston, L.G., Khanam,R., Reza,M., Khan, S.I., Banu,S., Shah Alam, Rahman,M.,
Azim,T. The Effectiveness of Respondent Driven Sampling for Recruiting Males
Who have Sex with Males in Dhaka, Bangladesh. AIDS Behav (2008) 12:294–304
Johnston, L.G., Sabin, K., Hien, M.T. and Huong, P.T. Assessment of Respondent Driven
Sampling for Recruiting Female Sex Workers in Two Vietnamese Cities: Reaching
the Unseen Sex Worker Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York
Academy of Medicine, Vol. 83, No. 7
Kandel, Denise, The Measurement of "Ever Use" and "Frequency-Quantity" (in Drug
Use Surveys), pp. 27-35, NIDA, Research Monograph Series 2, Operational
Definition in Socio-behavioural Drug Use Research, Rockville, MD: National
Institute on Drug Abuse
Kopp, P. & Blanchard, N. 1997. Social costs of drug use in France.
Meyer Roger E Different Patterns of Drug Use, pp. 17-24, NIDA, Research Monograph
Series 2, Operational Definition in Socio-behavioural Drug Use Research,
Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse
Office of National Drug Control Policy.2004. The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in the
United States, 1992-2002. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President
(Publication No. 207303). http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 222
Predicting Heavy Drug Use: Results of a Longitudinal Study, Youth Characteristics
Describing and Predicting Heavy Drug Use by Adults. Published February 2004.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/
publications/predict_drug_use/intro.pdf
Ramirez-Valles, J.,Heckathorn, D.D.,V´azquez, R., Diaz, R.M.and Campbell, R.T.
From Networks to Populations: The Development and Application of Respondent-
Driven Sampling Among IDUs and Latino Gay Men. AIDS and Behavior, Vol. 9,
No. 4, December 2005
Rehm, J., Baliunas, D., Brochu, S., Fischer, B., Gnam, W., Patra, J., Popova, S.,
Sarnocinska-Hart, A., Taylor, B. 2006. The Cost of Substance Abuse in Canada 2002
Ritter, C. & Anthony, J.C. 1991. Factors influencing initiation of cocaine use among
adults : Findings from the epidemiologic Caatchment Area Program. In S.
Schober & C. Shade (Eds.), The An Epidemiology of cocaine use and abuse pp.
189-210, NIDA Research Monograph 110, DHHS Publication ADM 91-1787,
Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse
Robson, L. & Single, E.1995. Literatur review on the economic costs of substance
abuse. A report of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
Salganik MJ, Heckathorn DD. Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using
respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Methodol. 2004;34:193–239.
Schauffler, Et All (2001). Medicaid Coverage For Tobacco-Dependence Treatments,
Health Affairs, 20(1).
Single, E., Collins, D., Easton, B., Harwood, H., Lapsley, H., Kopp, P. dan Wilson, E. 2001.
International Guidelines for Estimating the Costs of Substance Abuse—2001
Edition Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, National and State
Estimates of theDrug Abuse Treatment Gap: 2000 National Household Survey on
Drug Abuse, Appendix A, DHHS, 2002.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2008. Results from the
2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (Office of
Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-34, DHHS Publication No. SMA 08-4343).
Rockville, MD.
Todorov, AA., MT Lynskey, JD Grant, JF Scherrer, RD Todd, KK Bucholz (2006).
“Psyciatrich comorbidity and progression in drug use in adult Male twins:
implications for the design of genetic association studies”. Addictive Behaviour
31 (2006): 948-961
Wang J, Carlson RG, Falck RS, Siegal HA Rahman A, Li L. Respondent-driven sampling
to recruit MDMA users: a methodological assessment. Drug Alcohol Depend.
2005; 78:147–157
What America's Users Spend on Illegal Drugs1988–2000. Published December 2001.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/
publications/pdf/american_users_spend_2002.pdf

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 223
www.datastatistik-indonesia.com
www.nisn.diknas.go.id – Data rekap nasional.
World drug report 2007. United Nations on Drugs and Crime.
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/ gap/trs-6.ppt-2007-06-05
World Drug Report 2008. http://www.unodc.org
Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia. 2018. Data Kasus dan Tersangka serta Barang
Bukti Tindak Pidana Narkoba yang Berhasil Disita oleh Polri Tahun 2017.
Jakarta, Indonesia.
Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia. 2018. Data Kasus dan Tersangka serta Barang
Bukti Tindak Pidana Narkoba yang Berhasil Disita oleh Polri Tahun 2015 – 2017.
Jakarta, Indonesia.
Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia. 2018. Jalur Peredaran Gelap Narkoba dari Luar
Negeri Masuk ke Indonesia Tahun 2017. Jakarta. Indonesia.
Kementerian Keuangan RI, Direktorat Jenderal Bea dan Cukai Kementerian Keuangan.
2018. Data Penyitaan Narkotika Sitaan dari Ditjen Bea dan Cukai Kementerian
Keuangan RI Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Kementerian Keuangan RI, Direktorat Jenderal Bea dan Cukai Kementerian Keuangan.
2018. Data Penyitaan Narkotika Sitaan dari Ditjen Bea dan Cukai Kementerian
Keuangan RI Tahun 2013 – 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Kementerian Hukum dan HAM RI, Direktorat Jenderal Lembaga Pemasyarakatan.
2018. Data Narapidana dan Tahanan Kasus Narkoba di Seluruh Indonesia
Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Kementerian Hukum dan HAM RI, Direktorat Jenderal Lembaga Pemasyarakatan.
2018. Data Narapidana dan Tahanan Kasus Narkoba di Seluruh Indonesia
Tahun 2015 – 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Kementerian Hukum dan HAM RI, Direktorat Jenderal Lembaga Pemasyarakatan.
2018. Data Narapidana dan Tahanan di Lapas Khusus Narkotika Seluruh
Indonesia dan Data Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Khusus Narkotika (Lapassustik)
di Indonesia Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Kejaksaan Agung RI. 2018. Data Jumlah Penyelesaian Perkara Narkotika dan
Psikotropika per Provinsi dan Terpidana Mati WNA dan WNI Perkara Narkotika
dan Psikotropika dari Kejaksaan Agung RI Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Kejaksaan Agung RI. 2018. Data Terpidana Mati Kasus Narkoba yang telah Dieksekusi
Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia
Kementerian Luar Negeri RI. 2018. Data Warga Negera Indonesia (WNI) yang Terlibat
Tindak Pidana Narkoba di Luar Negeri Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan. 2018. Data Hasil Pengujian Barang Bukti Tindak
Pidana Narkotika, Psikotropika dan Zat Adiktif Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Kementerian Kesehatan RI. 2018. Injecting Drugs User (IDU) dan HIV/AIDS Tahun
2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 224
Kementerian Kesehatan RI. 2018. Data Injecting Drug User (IDU) dan HIV/AIDS Tahun
2015 – 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Kementerian Kesehatan RI. 2018. Data Wajib Lapor dan Rehabilitasi Medis Tahun
2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Kementerian Kesehatan RI. 2018. Data Posisi Perkembangan Layanan Program Terapi
Rumatan Metadon (PTRM) Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Kementerian Sosial RI. 2018. Data Penyalahguna Narkoba yang Melaporkan Diri ke
Institusi Penerima Wajib Lapor (IPWL) Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Pemberantasan BNN. 2018. Data Kasus dan
Tersangka serta Barang Bukti Tindak Pidana Narkotika, Prekursor dan
Pencucian Uang dari Badan Narkotika Nasional (BNN) Tahun 2017. Jakarta,
Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Pemberantasan BNN. 2018. Jalur Peredaran
Gelap Narkoba dari Luar Negeri Masuk ke Indonesia Tahun 2017. Jakarta.
Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Pemberantasan BNN. 2018. Data Tahanan
Kasus Narkotika di Badan Narkotika Nasional Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Pemberantasan BNN. 2018. Data Barang
Bukti Narkotika yang Dimusnahkan Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Pemberantasan BNN. 2018. Data
Rekomendasi Prekursor Non Farmasi yang Dikeluarkan oleh BNN Tahun 2017.
Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Pemberantasan BNN. 2018. Data Kasus dan
Tersangka serta Barang Bukti Tindak Pidana Narkotika dan Prekursor Tahun
2015 – 2017 dari BNN. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional. 2017. Data BNN Semester I Tahun 2018. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Pemberantasan BNN. 2017. Data Tahanan
Kasus Narkotika di Badan Narkotika Nasional Tahun 2015 – 2017. Jakarta,
Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Pencegahan BNN. 2018. Data Hasil Kegiatan
Deputi Bidang Pencegahan BNN Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Pemberdayaan Masyarakat BNN. 2018.
Data Hasil Kegiatan Deputi Bidang Pemberdayaan Masyarakat BNN Tahun
2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Rehabilitasi BNN. 2018. Data Klien yang
Mengakses Layanan Rehabilitasi di Lembaga Rehabilitasi Komponen
Masyarakat yang Memperoleh Dukungan Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Rehabilitasi BNN. 2018. Data Klien yang
Mengakses Layanan Rehabilitasi di Lembaga Rehabilitasi Komponen
Masyarakat yang Memperoleh Dukungan Tahun 2011 – 2015. Jakarta,
Indonesia.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 225
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Rehabilitasi BNN. 2018. Data Mantan
Pecandu yang telah Mengikuti Program Pasca Rehabilitasi Tahun 2017.
Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Rehabilitasi BNN. 2018. Daftar Lembaga
Yang Menjalankan Rehabilitasi Rawat Jalan Dan Rawat Inap Tahun 2017.
Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Deputi Bidang Hukum dan Kerjasama BNN. 2018. Data
Peraturan Kepala BNN dan MoU yang telah Dilaksanakan BNN Tahun 2017.
Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Pusat Penelitian Data dan Informasi BNN. 2018. Data Hasil
Penelitian Badan Narkotika Nasional Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Pusat Penelitian Data dan Informasi BNN. 2018. Data Hasil
Penelitian Badan Narkotika Nasional Tahun 2011 – 2015. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Pusat Penelitian Data dan Informasi BNN. 2018. Data Call
Center, SMS Center BNN dan Website BNN Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Pusat Penelitian Data dan Informasi BNN. 2018. Data Call
Center dan SMS Center Tahun 2011-2015 serta Data Website BNN Tahun
2015–2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Balai Besar Rehabilitasi BNN. 2018. Data Penyalahguna
yang Dirawat di Balai Besar Rehabilitasi BNN Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Balai Besar Rehabilitasi BNN. 2018. Data Penyalahguna
yang Dirawat di Balai Besar Rehabilitasi BNN Tahun 2015– 2017. Jakarta,
Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Balai Rehabilitasi Badokka Makassar. 2018. Data
Penyalahguna yang Dirawat di Balai Rehabilitasi Badokka Makassar Tahun
2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Balai Rehabilitasi Tanah Merah Kalimantan Timur. 2018.
Data Penyalahguna yang Dirawat di Balai Rehabilitasi Tanah Merah
Kalimantan Timur Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Loka Rehabilitasi BNN Batam Kepulauan Riau. 2018. Data
Penyalahguna yang Dirawat di Balai Besar Rehabilitasi Loka Batam Kepulauan
Riau Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.
Badan Narkotika Nasional, Balai Laboratorium Narkoba BNN. 2018. Data Hasil
Pengujian Sampel Laboratorium Narkoba dan Daftar Zat NPS yang Beredar di
Indonesia serta Turunannya dari BNN Tahun 2017. Jakarta, Indonesia.

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 226
 LIST OF INSTITUTIONS IMPLEMENTING INPATIENT AND
OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION IN 2017

1. List of Institutions Implementing Outpatient Rehabilitation.

NO. PROVINCE INSTITUTION

1 2 3
1. Aceh 1. RSUD Kota Sabang 6. RSUD Meuraxa
2. RSU Teungku Peukan Abdya 7. RSUD Zainal Abidin
3. RSU Hj. Sahudin Kutacane 8. RSUD Munyang Kute Redelong
Kab. Bener Meriah
4. RSUD Kota Subulus Salam 9. BNNP Aceh
5. RSUD TGK Chik Ditiro Kab. Pidie 10. BNN Kota/ Kabupaten di Aceh
2. North Sumatera 1. RSUD Deli Serdang 14. RS TNI AU “dr. Abdul Malik”
2. RSUD Padang Sidimpuan 15. RSU Kabanjahe
3. RSUD Tuan Rondahaim 16. RSUD Tapanuli Tengah
Pamatang Raya
4. RSU Haji Medan 17. RSUD Gunung Tua
5. RS TNI AL 18. RSUD Rantauprapat
6. RSUD Tapanuli Selatan 19. RSUD Kumpulan Pane
7. RSUD H Abdulmanan 20. RSUD DR. Ferdinand
Simatupang Kisaran Lumbangtobing Sibolga
8. RSUD Tarutung 21. RSUD Gunung Sitoli Nias
9. RSUD dr. Husni Thamrin 22. RSUD Tanjung Pura
10. RSU Sultan Sulaiman 23. Rumah Sakit Tk. II Kesdam I/BB
Putri Hijau Medan
11. RS Tentara Pematang Siantar 24. BNNP Sumatera Utara
12. RSUD dr. R.M Djoelham 25. BNN Kota/Kabupaten di
Sumatera Utara
13. RSUD Mandailing Natal
3. West Sumatera 1. RSUD Pariaman 13.RSUD Arosuka Solok
2. RSUD Dr. Rasidin Padang 14.RSUD Sungai Dareh
3.RSUD Dr. Adnaan WD 15.RSUD Prof. Dr M A Hanafiah
Payakumbuh Batusangkar
4.RSUD Solok 16.RSUD Lubuk Sikaping
5.RSUD Sawahlunto 17.RSUD Padang Pariaman
6.RSUD Padang Panjang 18.RSUD Solok Selatan
7.RSUD Muara Labuh 19.RSUD Sijunjung
8.RSUD Lubuk Basung 20.Puskesmas Mandiangin
9.RSUD dr. Acmad Darwis 21.Puskesmas Tigo Baleh
10.RSUD Pasaman Barat 22.BNNP Sumatera Barat
11.RSUD Kab. Kep. Mentawai 23. BNN Kota/ Kabupaten di
Sumatera Barat
12.RSUD Dr. Muhamad Zein Painan
4. Riau RSUD Siak RSUD Raja Musa
RSUD Rokan Hulu RSUD Tengku Sulung
RSUD.Dr. Pratomo Bagan Siapi-api RS TNI Angkatan Darat (AD)
Pekanbaru
RSUD Selasih Riau Puskesmas Senapelan Kota
Pekanbaru
RSU Bangkinang Kampar Riau Puskesmas Garuda Kota Pekanbaru
RSUD Kab. Bengkalis Puskesmas Simpang Baru Riau
RSUD Teluk Kuantan RSUD Arifin Achmad
RSUD Indrasari Rengat Puskesmas Sidomulyo
RSUD Kec.Mandau BNNP Riau
RSUD Kab. Kepulauan Meranti BNN Kota/ Kabupaten di Riau

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 227
 1 2 3
5. South Sumatera RSUD Sungai Lilin Muba RSUD Ibnu Sutowo
RSUD Siti Aisyah Lubuklinggau RSUD Palembang Bari
RSUD Kayu Agung RSUD Sekayu
RSUD Banyuasin RSUD Basemah Pagar Alam
RSUD Lahat Puskesmas 23 Ilir
RSUD Talang Ubi Pali Puskesmas Merdeka
RSUD Kab. Ogan Ilir Puskesmas Dempo
RSUD Prabumulih BNNP Sumatera Selatan
RSUD Tebing Tinggi. Kab. Empat BNN Kota/ Kabupaten di Sumatera
Lawang Selatan
RSUD Martapura
6. Bengkulu RSUD Lebong RSUD Bengkulu Tengah
Puskesmas Muara Aman Kab. Puskesmas Masmambang Kab.
Lebong Seluma
Puskesmas Perumnas Kab. Rejang Puskesmas Cahaya Negeri Kab.
Lebong Seluma
Puskesmas BeRestaurantani Ulu RSUD Kota Bengkulu
Kab. Rejang Lebong
Puskesmas Kepala Curup Kab. Puskesmas Penurunan Kota
Rejang Lebong Bengkulu
RSUD Kepahiang Puskesmas Lingkar Barat Kota
Bengkulu
Puskesmas Tetap Kab.Kaur Puskesmas Sawah Lebar Kota
Bengkulu
Puskesmas Tanjung Kemuning Kab. BNNP Bengkulu
Kaur
7. Jambi RSD KOL. Abdundjani Bangko- RSUD Ahmad Ripin Sengeti Muaro
Merangin Jambi
Puskesmas Putri Ayu RSUD Mayjen H.A.Thalib Kerinci
RSUD Sultan Thaha Saifuddin Tebo. RSUD Prof.Dr.H.M.Chatib Quwain
Jambi
RSUD Sungai Gelam Kab. Muaro RSUD Nurdin Hamzah
Jambi
RSUD Sungai Bahar BNNP Jambi
Puskesmas Payo Selincah BNN Kota/ Kabupaten di Jambi
RSUD H.Abdul Manap Kota Jambi
8. Lampung RSUD Ahmad Yani Kota Metro RSUD Dr. H. Bob Bazar.SKM
RSUD Kota Agung RSUD Zainal Abidin Pagaralam
RSUD Pringsewu RSUD Pesawaran
RSUD Mayjen HM Ryacudu RSUD Dr. A. Dadi Tjokrodipo
RSUD Menggala Puskesmas Perawatan Panjang
RSUD Demang Sepulau Raya Puskesmas Rawat Inap Simpur
RSUD Sukadana BNNP Lampung
RSUD Liwa BNN Kab di Lampung
9. Bangka Belitung Puskesmas Pasir Putih Puskesmas Benteng
Puskesmas Pangkalbalam Puskesmas Toboali
Puskesmas Selindung Puskesmas Tempilang
Puskesmas Tanjungbinga Puskesmas Kelapa
Puskesmas Sungailiat BNNP Kepulauan Bangka Belitung
Puskesmas Batu Rusa BNN Kota/Kab. di Bangka Belitung
Puskesmas Pangkalan Baru
10. Riau Islands RSUP Tj. Uban Bintan Puskesmas Botania-Batam
RSUP Batu 8 Tj. Pinang Puskesmas Sei Langkai-Batam
RSUD Tj. Pinang Puskesmas Toapaya-Bintan
RSUD Karimun Puskesmas Tarempa-Anambas
RSUD Kijang. Bintan Puskesmas Dabo Lama-Lingga
RSAL Tj. Pinang Puskesmas Ranai-Natuna
Puskesmas Belakang Padang- BNNP Kepulauan Riau
Batam
Puskesmas Lubuk Baja-Batam BNN Kota/ Kab. di Kepulauan Riau
Puskesmas Sei Pancur-Batam

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 228
 1 2 3
11. Banten Puskesmas Jombang Puskesmas Cadasari Pandeglang
Puskesmas DTP Ciomas Kab. Serang Puskesmas Serpong I
Puskesmas Parigi Puskesmas Cisauk
Puskesmas Tirtayasa RSUD Kota Tangerang
Puskesmas Cilegon RSUD Cilegon
RSUD Banten Puskesmas Serang Kota
RSU Kota Tangerang Selatan RSUD Balaraja
RSUD Dr. AdjidaRestauranto Lebak BNNP Banten
Puskesmas Pondok Betung BNN Kota/ Kabupaten di Banten
Tangerang Selatan
12. DKI Jakarta RSUD Kepulauan Seribu Puskesmas Pengaduan IV Kalideres
RSUD Cengkareng Puskesmas Kampung Bali
RSUD Budi Asih Puskesmas Petamburan
RSUD Pasar Rebo BNNP DKI Jakarta
RS Haji Jakarta BNN Kota/Kab. di DKI Jakarta
RS Koja Puskesmas Plumbon Kab. Cirebon
13. West Java RSUD Kota Bandung RSUD Pelabuhan Ratu Kab.
Sukabumi
RSUD dr. Slamet Garut Puskesmas Muka Kab. Cianjur
RSUD Soreang Puskesmas Cidahu Kab. Kuningan
RSUD Al Ihsan Puskesmas Padalarang
Kab.Bandung Barat
RSUD Cibabat Puskesmas Banjar III Kota Banjar
Puskesmas Kopo Puskesmas Pangandaran Kab.
Pangandaran
Puskesmas Pasirkaliki UPTD Puskesmas Kahuripan Kota
Tasikmalaya
RSUD Arjawinangun Kab. Cirebon Puskesmas Siliwangi Kab. Garut
RSUD Kelas B Cianjur RSUD Klas B Non Pendidikan
Karawang
RSUD Majalaya Puskesmas Cimahi Tengah
RSUD Kabupaten Ciamis Puskesmas Melong Asih Cimahi
RSUD Sekarwangi Sukabumi RSUD Linggajati Kuningan
Puskesmas Ibrahim Adjie Puskesmas Ujung Berung Indah
RSUD Sumedang UPT RSUD Cililin
RSUD Cimacan Kelas D Puskesmas Cikampek Karawang
RSUD Gunung Jati Kota Cirebon RSUD Cicalengka Kab. Bandung
UPTD Puskesmas Drajat Kota RSUD Jampangkulon Sukabumi
Cirebon
UPTD Puskesmas Kesunean Kota UPT. Puksesmas Margahayu Raya
Cirebon
UPT Puskesmas Kec. Pancoran Mas RSUD Kota Depok
Kota Depok
RSUD Cibinong Bogor Puskesmas Nusaherang Kuningan
RS Singaparna Medika Citrautama Puskesmas Luragung Kab. Kuningan
Kab. Tasikmalaya
RSUD Leuwiliang Kab. Bogor BNNP West Java
Puskesmas Karawang BNN Kota/Kab. di West Java
14. Central Java RSUD Tugurejo RSUD Dr. M. Ashari Pemalang
RSUD Kota Salatiga RSUD Sunan Kalijaga Demak
RSUD Kota Surakarta RSUD Ajibarang
RSUD Kota Semarang RSUD KRT. Setjonegoro
RSUD Pandan Arang Boyolali RSUD Dr. R. Soedjati Soemodiardjo
RSUD Dr. Soehadi Prijonegoro RSUD Hj. Anna Lasmanah
Sragen
RSUD Kudus RSUD Ambarawa
RSUD Dr. Soeratno Gemolong RSUD Temanggung
Sragen
RSUD Banyudono Boyolali RSUD Batang
RSUD Simo Kab. Boyolali RSUD Bendan Pekalongan
RSUD Kab. Karanganyar RSUD dr. R. Soeprapto Cepu Blora

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 229
 1 2 3
RSUD Dr. R. Soetijono Blora RSUD Brebes
RSUD Ungaran RSUD Suradadi Tegal
RSUD Raa Soewondo Pati RSUD Majenang
Puskesmas Gunung Pati Semarang RSUD Bumiayu
Puskesmas Halmahera RSUD Kayen Pati
RSUD Ambarawa RSUD Kajen Pekalongan
Puskesmas Pandanaran Semarang RSUD Cilacap
RSUD Dr. SoediRestaurantan RSUD Dr. H. Soewondo
RSUD dr.R.Goeteng Taroenadibrata RSUD dr. R. Soetrasno Rembang
RSUD Muntilan RSUD Kardinah Tegal
RSUD Saras Husada BNNP Central Java
RSUD dr. Loekmono Hadi Kudus BNN Kota/Kab. di Central Java
RSUD Tidar Kota Magelang RSUD Sourcerejo Kab. Bojonegoro
15. East Java RSU Dr. Wahidin Sudiro Husodo RS Daerah Balung Kab. Jember
Kota Mojokerto
RSUD Kanjuruhan Kepanjen Malang RSUD dr. Sayidiman Magetan
RSUD Waluyo Jati Kraksaan RSUD Kelas B Kab. Bojonegoro
RSUD Dr. Iskak Tulungagung RSUD Geteng
RSUD Dr. Moch. Soewandhi Puskesmas Tenggilis
Surabaya
RSU Ngudi Waluyo Wlingi Kab. RSUD Jombang
Blitar
RSUD Dr. Harjono S Kab. Ponorogo RS Petrokimia Gresik
RSUD Dr. Wahidin Sudiro Husodo RS Fatmah Medika Gresik
RSUD Dr. Haryoto Lumajang RSUD dr. Soedono Madiun
RSUD Kab Kediri Puskesmas Dupak
RSUD dr. Abdoer Rahem BNNP East Java
RSUD Ploso Kab. Jombang BNN Kota/Kab. di East Java
16. DI Yogyakarta RSUD PanembahanSenopatiBantul PuskesmasTegal Rejo Yogyakarta
RSUD Prambanan. Sleman Puskesmas Depok III Sleman
RSUD Wates. Kulon Progo Puskesmas Prambanan
RSUD Wonosari. Gunung kidul BNNP DI Yogyakarta
RSUD Murangan. Sleman BNN Kota/Kab. di Yogyakarta
17. Bali RSUD Wangaya RSUD Klungkung
RSUD Sanjiwani Gianyar RSU Bangli
BRSU Tabanan RSUD Amlapura Karangasem
RSUD Kab. Buleleng Puskesmas II Denpasar Selatan
RSUD Kab. Badung BNNP Bali
RSU Negara BNN Kota/Kab. di Bali
18. West Kalimantan RSUD dr. Abdul Azis Singkawang RSUD Melawi
RSUD Dokter Rubini Mempawah RS Bergerak Balai Karangan
RSUD Dokter Agoesdjam RSUD Sultan Syarif Mohamad
Alkadrie
RSUD Sintang Puskesmas Tanjung Hulu
RSUD Sambas RS Univ tanjung pura
RSU Bengkayang Puskesmas Kampung Dalam
RSUD Landak Puskesmas Alianyang
RSUD Sanggau BNNP Kalimantan Barat
RSUD dr. Achmad Diponegoro BNN Kota/Kab. di Kalimantan Barat
Puskesmas Selalong Kab. Sekadau
19. East Kalimantan RSUD I.A Moeis Samarinda Puskesmas Bontang Selatan I
RSUD Panglima Sebaya Puskesmas Bontang Lestari
RSUD Kudungga Kutai Timur Puskesmas Muara Wahau I
RSUD Abdul Rivai Tanjung Redeb Puskesmas Baqa
RSAL Ilyas Tarakan Puskesmas Sempaja Samarinda
RSUD Penajam Puskesmas Batu Ampar Kutai Timur
RSUD Kudungga Sangata Puskesmas Sangatta Selatan
RSUD Harapan Insan Sendawar Puskesmas Klandasan Ilir Balikppn
RSUD Kab. PPU Puskesmas Karang Rejo
RSUD Kab. Nunukan BNNP Kalimantan Timur
RSUD Abadi Samboja BNN Kota/Kab. di Kalimantan Timur

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 230
 1 2 3
20. South Kalimantan RSUD Datu Sanggul Rantau Puskesmas Sungai Jingah
BanjaRestaurantasin
RSUD Brigjen H. Hasan Basry Puskesmas Karang Intan Kabupaten
Kandanga Banjar
RSUD H Abdul Aziz Marabahan Puskesmas Teluk Tiram
RSUD Balangan Puskesmas Gedang Hanyar
RSUD dr. Andi Abdurrahman Noor BNNP Kalimantan Selatan
Tanah Bumbu
RSUD H. Damanhuri Barabai BNN Kota/Kab. di South Kalimantan
Puskesmas Martapura
21. Central RSUD dr. Doris Sylvanus RSUD Tamiang Layang
Kalimantan RSUD Jaraga Sasameh RSUD Muara Teweh
RSUD Sultan Imanuddin Pangkalan RSUD Sukamara
Bun
RSUD Mas Amsyar Kasongan RSUD Kuala Pembuang
RSUD Puruk Cahu RSUD Pulang Pisau
RSUD dr. Murjani Sampit RSUD Lamandau
BLUD RSUD dr. H. Soemarno BNNP Kalimantan Tengah
Sostroatmodjo
BLUD RSUD Kuala Kurun BNN Kota/Kab. di Central
Kalimantan
22. West Sulawesi RSUD Kab. Mamuju Utara PKM Pekkabata
RSUD Kondo Sapata. Kab. Mamasa PKM Wonomulyo
RSUD Kab. Mamuju PKM Binanga Mamuju
RSUD Kab. Mamuju Tengah PKM Mamasa. Kab Mamasa
RSUD Kab. Majene BNNP Sulawesi Barat
RSUD Kab. Polewali Mandar
23. South Sulawesi RSU Haji Makassar RSU Lamadukeleng Sengkang
RSU Ajapange Soppeng RSU Nene Mallomo
RSU Labuang Baji RSUD Arifin Numang
RSU Sayang Rakyat RSU Lasinrang Pinrang
RSUD Daya RSU Enrekang
RSUD Batara Guru RSU Saweri Gading Palopo
RSUD Siwa RSU Andi Jemma Masamba
RSU Selayar RSU Lakipadad Tana Toraja
RSU Prof. Dr. A. Makkatutu RSUD I Lagaligo
RSUD Lanto daeng Pasewang Puskesmas Tamalate Makassar
RSU H. Pajonga Dg. Ngale Takalar Puskesmas Makkasau. Makassar
RSUD Syekh Yusup Gowa Puskesmas Andalas. Makassar
RSU Sinjai Puskesmas Maccini Sawah.Makasar
RSU Tenriawaru Bone BNNP Sulawesi Selatan
RSU Pangkep BNN Kota/Kab. di Sulawesi Selatan
RSU Barru
24. North Sulawesi RSU Bethesda RSUD Talaud
RSUP Ratatotok Minahasa RSUD Kota Kotamobagu
Tenggara
RSAL dr. Wahyu Slamet Bitung Puskesmas Pusian. Bolaang
Mongondow
RSUD Noongan Minahasa Puskesmas Inobonto. Bolaang
Mongondow
RS Maria Walanda Maramis RSUD Bolaang Mongondow Selatan
RSUD Amurang Minahasa Selatan RSUD Bolaang Mongondow Utara
RSUD Liun Kendage Yearsa Puskesmas Paniki Bawah. Manado
RSUD Lapangan Sawang Siau BNNP Sulawesi Utara
RSUD Tagulandang BNN Kota/Kab. di Sulawesi Utara
25. Central Sulawesi RSUD Kabelota kab. Donggala RSUD Morowali
RSUD Anuntaloko Kab. Parigi RSU Mokopido Kabupaten Toli-toli
Moutong
RSUD Kolonedale RSUD Ampana Kab. Tojo Una-una
RSUD Raja Tombolotutu RSUD Buol
RSUD Trikora Salakan Kab. Bangkep RSUD Wakai
RSUD Poso Kabupaten Poso BNNP Sulawesi Tengah
RSUD Luwuk Kabupaten Banggai BNN Kota/Kab. di Sulawesi Tengah

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 231
 1 2 3
26. Gorontalo RSUD dr. Hasri Ainun Habibie RSUD Pohuwato
RSUD Otanaha Puskesmas Telaga
RSUD Tombulilato Rumkitban Gorontalo
RSUD. Dr. M.M Dunda Limboto BNNP Gorontalo
RSUD Toto Kabila BNN Kota/Kab. di Gorontalo
RSUD Tani dan Nelayan
27. S.E.Sulawesi RSUD Bahteramas Prov. S.E. RSUD Kab. Buton Utara
Sulawesi
RSUD Abunawas Kota Kendari RSUD Pasar Wajo Kab. Buton
RSUD Kota Baubau RSUD Raha Kab. Muna
RSUD Kab. Konawe Utara RSUD Kab. Kolaka Timur
RSUD Unaaha Kab. Konawe RSUD Kab. Konawe Kepulauan
BLUD Benyamin Guluh Kab. Kolaka BNNP Sulawesi Tenggara
RSUD Kab. Bombana BNN Kota/Kab. di S.E. Sulawesi
28. Maluku RSUD Namrole Kab. Buru Selatan RSUD M. Haulussy
RSUD Tulehu Puskesmas Hitu
RSUD Piru. Kab. Seram Bag. Barat Puskesmas C.H Martatiahahu
RSUD Masohi Kab. Maluku Tengah Puskesmas Waihaong
RSUD Namlea. Kab. Buru Puskesmas Tual
RSUD Cendrawasih Dobo - Aru Puskesmas Poka
RSUD Maren Kota Tual BNNP Maluku
RSAL dr. F. X Suhardjo Halong BNN Kota/Kab. di Maluku
RS TNI AU Lanud Pattimura
29. North Maluku RS Ternate TK IV RSUD Maba
RSD Kota Tidore Kepulauan RSUD Weda
RSUD Tobelo RSUD Kab. Pulau Morotai
RSUD Jailolo Puskesmas Kalumata
RSUD Sanana BNNP Maluku Utara
RSUD Labuha BNN Kota/Kab. di Maluku Utara
RSU Obi
30. East Nusa Rumah Sakit Angkatan Udara RSUD BA'A Kab. Rote Ndao
Tenggara Rumah Sakit Wirasakti Kupang Puskesmas Labuan Bajo East Nusa
Tenggara
Rumah Sakit S.K Lerik Kupang Puskesmas Kupang Kota
RSUD Soe RSUD dr. T.C. Hillers Maumere
RSUD Naibonat Puskesmas Sikumana
RSUD Kefamenanu Puskesmas Oebobo
RSUD Atambua Kab.Belu BNNP Nusa Tenggara Timur
RSUD Umbu Rara Meita Waingapu BNN Kota/Kab. di East Nusa
Tenggara
31. West Nusa RSUD Provinsi NTB di Sumbawa RSUD Kota Bima
Tenggara RSUD KSB Sumbawa Barat RSUD Dompu
RSUD Kab.Sumbawa Besar RSUP West Nusa Tenggara
RSUD dr. R. Soedjono Selong RSUD Kota Mataram
Lombok Timur
RSUD Kab. Lombok Utara Puskesmas Karang Taliwang
RSUD Praya Lombok Tengah BNNP Nusa Tenggara Barat
RSUD Patut Patuh Patju Gerung BNN Kota/Kab. di West Nusa
Lombok Barat Tenggar
RSU Sondosia Kab. Bima
32. Papua RSUD Yowari Kab. Jayapura Puskesmas Abepura
RSUD Abepura Puskesmas Koya Barat
RSUD Kwaingga Keerom RSUD Jayapura
RSUD Jayapura BNNP Papua
Puskesmas Waena BNN Kota/ Kabupaten di Papua
RSUD Abepura
33. West Papua RSU Sele Be Solu Sorong Puskesmas Sanggeng Prov. West
Papua
RSU Manokwari RSAL Sorong
RSUD Raja Ampat RSAD Manokwari
RSU Scholoo Keyen RSUD Kab.Sorong
RSU Bintuni BNNP Papua Barat
RSUD Kab. Teluk Wondama BNN Kota/ Kab. di Papua Barat

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 232
2. List of Institutions Implementing Outpatient Rehabilitation

NO. PROVINCE INSTITUTION

1 2 3
1. Aceh Lapas Klas II A Banda Aceh SPN Polda Aceh
Lapas Klas III Narcotics Langsa Rindam Iskandar Muda
Lapas Klas III Narcotics Langkat
2. North Sumatera Lapas Klas II A Narcotics Pematang Lapas Klas IIB Tebing Tinggi
Siantar
Lapas Klas IIA Wanita Medan Lapas Klas IIB Tanjung Balai
Lapas Klas IIA Lubuk Pakam Rutan Klas IIB Tanjung Pura
Lapas Klas IIA Binjai Rutan Klas IIB Labuhan Deli
LPKA Medan Rutan Klas I Medan
Lapas Klas I Medan SPN Polda North Sumatera
Lapas Klas IIB Si Borong-borong Rindam Bukit Barisan
3. West Sumatera SPN Polda West Sumatera Lapas Klas IIB Lubuk Basung
Lapas Klas II A Padang Lapas Klas IIB Payakumbuh
Lapas Klas IIA Bukitinggi Lapas Klas IIB Lubuk Sikaping
Lapas Klas IIB Pariaman LPKA Provinsi Sumatera Barat
Lapas Klas IIB Solok Lapas Klas IIB Muara Sijunjung
4. South Sumatera Lapas Klas III Narcotics Palembang SPN Polda South Sumatera
Lapas Klas II A Narcotics Lubuk
Rindam Sriwijaya
Linggau
Lapas Klas I Palembang
5. Bengkulu SPN Polda Bengkulu Lapas Klas II A Bengkulu

6. Jambi SPN Polda Jambi Lapas Klas II A Jambi

Lapas Klas III A Narcotics Muara
Sabak
7. South Sumatera Lapas Klas III Narcotics Palembang SPN Polda South Sumatera
Lapas Klas II A Narcotics Lubuk
Rindam Sriwijaya
Linggau
Lapas Klas I Palembang
8. Bengkulu SPN Polda Bengkulu Lapas Klas II A Bengkulu
9. Lampung SPN Polda Lampung Lapas Klas I Bandar Lampung
Lapas Klas II A Narcotics Bandar
Loka Lampung
Lampung
10. Bangka Belitung Lapas Klas III Narcotics Pangkal SPN Polda Bangka Belitung
Pinang
11. Riau Islands Lapas Klas IIA Batam Lapas Klas II A Narcotics Tanjung
Pinang
Lapas Klas IIA Tanjung Pinang
12. Banten Pusdiklat Dinas Sosial Prov Banten
Lapas Klas III Cilegon
(Pasir Ona)
SPN Polda Banten Lapas Anak Klas I Tangerang
Lapas Klas IIA Wanita Tangerang Rutan Klas I Tangerang
Lapas Pemuda Klas IIA Tangerang Rutan Klas IIB Pandegelang
Lapas Klas I Tangerang Rutan Klas IIB Rangkas Bitung
Lapas Anak Wanita Klas IIB
Rutan Klas IIB Serang
Tangerang
Lapas Klas IIA Serang
13. DKI Jakarta Lapas Klas II A Narcotics Cipinang Pusdikes
Lapas Klas I Cipinang RS Suyoto
Lapas Klas IIA Salemba RSPAD
Rindam Jaya

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 233
 1 2 3
14. West Java Pusdikpom Lapas Klas IIA Bogor
Pusdikif Rindam Siliwangi
Lapas Klas II A Banceuy Pusdikseni
Lapas Klas II A Narcotics Bandung Pusdk Intel
Lapas Klas II A Narcotics Gintung
SPN Polda West Java
Cirebon
Lapas Klas IIA Wanita Bandung
15. Central Java Lapas Klas II A Narcotics Lapas Klas IIA Magelang
Nusakambangan
Lapas Klas I Semarang Rindam Diponegoro
Lapas Klas IIA Wanita Semarang
16. East Java Lapas Klas II A Narcotics
Lapas Klas I Surabaya
Pamekasan
Lapas Klas III Narcotics Madiun Lapas Klas IIA Jember
Lapas Klas I Malang Rindam Brawijaya
Lapas Klas II A Pamekasan Kobangdikal TNI AL
Lapas Klas I Madiun Pusdikgasum
Lapas Klas IIA Sidoarjo SPN Polda East Java
Lapas Wanita Klas IIA Malang
17. DI Yogyakarta Lapas Klas II A Narcotics Yogyakarta SPN Polda DI YOGYAKARTA
Lapas Klas IIA Yogyakarta
18. Bali SPN Polda Bali Lapas Klas IIB Tabanan
Rindam Udayana Lapas Klas II A Denpasar
Lapas Klas III Narcotics Bangli
19. West Kalimantan SPN Polda West Kalimantan Lapas Klas II A Pontianak
Rindam Tanjung Pura
20. East Kalimantan Lapas Klas III Narcotics Samarinda SPN Polda East Kalimantan
Lapas Klas IIA Samarinda Rindam MulawaRestaurantan East
Kalimantan
21. South Kalimantan SPN Polda South Kalimantan Lapas Klas IIB Amuntai
Rindam Mulawarman South
Lapas Klas IIA Kotabaru
Kalimantan
Lapas Klas II A Narcotics Karang
Lapas Klas III Banjarbaru
Intan
LPKA Martapura
22. Central Lapas Klas III Narcotics Kasongan
SPN Polda Central Kalimantan
Kalimantan
23. South Sulawesi SPN Polda South Slaawesi Lapas Klas IIB Takalar
Rindam Wirabuana Lapas Anak Klas IIA Pare-Pare
Lapas Klas II A Narcotics Lapas Klas IIA Palopo
Sungguminasa
Lapas Klas IIA Wanita Lapas Klas IIA Watampone
Sungguminasa
24. North Sulawesi SPN Polda North Sulawesi Lapas Klas II A Manado
25. Central Sulawesi Lapas Klas II A Palu SPN Polda Central Sulawesi
26. Gorontalo Lapas Klas II A Gorontalo
27. S.E.Sulawesi Lapas Klas II A Kendari SPN Polda S.E. Sulawesi
28. Maluku Rindam Patimura SPN Polda Maluku
Lapas Klas II A Ambon
29. North Maluku Lapas Klas II A Ternate
30. EAST NUSA SPN Polda EAST NUSA
TENGGARA/NTT TENGGARA/NTT
31. WEST NUSA SPN Polda WEST NUSA Lapas Klas II A Mataram
TENGGARA/NTB TENGGARA/NTB
32. Papua Rindam Cendrawasih Lapas Klas II A Narcotics Jayapura
33. West Papua SRAL Sorong Lapas Klas II A Manokwari
RSAD Manokwari
34. West Sulawesi Lapas Klas IIB Polewali Rutan Klas IIB Mamuju

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 234
 SPECIAL NARCOTICS PRISONS (LAPASSUSTIK) IN INDONESIA

List of 23 (twenty-three) Special Prisons and Addresses in Indonesia;

NO. PRISON ADDRESS

1 2 3
1. Lapas Narcotics Kelas II A Bandung Jl. Rancamanuk Kel. Wargamekar Kec.
Baleendah Kabupaten Bandung
2. Lapas Kelas II A Narcotics Jayapura Jl. Raya Sentani Depapre No. 90 Doyo Baru
3. Lapas Narcotics Kelas II A Madiun Jl. Yos Sudarso Madiun – East Java
Telp. (0351) 462161
4. Lapas Narcotics Kelas II A Jl. Narcotics Nusakambangan
Nusakambangan
5. Lapas Kelas II A Sungguminasa Jl. Lembaga Bolangi Desa Timbusseng Kec.
Pattalasang
Kab. Gowa – South Slaawesi Telp. (0411)
868547
6. Lapas Kelas II A Narcotics Tanjung Pinang Jl. DR. Saharjo No. 1 Km. 18 Kampung Banjar
7. Lapas Kelas III Narcotics Langkat Jl. Simp. FaRestaurant Desa Domba Kec. Hinai
Jalan
8. Lapas Kelas III Narcotics Muara Sabak Desa Suka Maju Kec. Geragai
9. Lapas Narcotics Kelas II A Bandar Jl. Ryacudu Way Hui Bandar Lampung
Lampung Telp. (0721) 479198
10. Lapas Narcotics Kelas II A Cipinang Jl. Raya Bekasi Timur No. 170 Cipinang – Jaktim
Telp. (021) 85909891. 85910101
11. Lapas Narcotics Kelas II A Cirebon Jl. Wijaya Kusuma Desa Gintung Tengah
Ciwaringin Cirebon – West Java
Telp. (0231) 204247
12. Lapas Kelas II A Narcotics Karang Intan Desa Lihung Kec. Karang Intan Kab. Banjar
Proviinsi South Kalimantan
13. Lapas Kelas II A Narcotics Lubuk Linggau Jl. Lintas Sumatera Selatan Km. 19 Muara Beliti
14 Lapas Narcotics Kelas II A Pamekasan Jl. Pembina No. 1 Pamekasan
15. Lapas Kelas II A Narcotics Pematang Jl. Asahan Km. 7 No. 8 Pematang Siantar 21151
Siantar
16. Lapas Narcotics Kelas II A Yogyakarta Jl. Kaliurang Km 17 Pokem Sleman
Yogyakarta 55582
17. Lapas Kelas III Narcotics Kasongan Jl. Cilik Riwut Km. 10 Kasongan
18. Lapas Kelas III Narcotics Langsa Jl. Banda Aceh – Medan Km 438 Kota Langsa
19. Lapas Kelas III Narcotics Pangkal Pinang Pangkal Pinang
20. Lapas Kelas III Narcotics Samarinda Jl. Padat Karya RT. 16 Bayur. Kel. Sempaja Utara
Kec. Samarinda Utara
21. Lapas Narcotics Kelas II A Bangli BR. Buungan Desa Tiga Kec. Susut Kab. Bangli
22. Lapas Narcotics Kelas III Sawahlunto Jl. Subari Sukardi Kandih Sawahlunto
23. Lapas Narcotics Kelas III Palembang Jl. Tanjung Sari LK. III RT. 029 RW. 006 Kel.
Sukomoro Kec. Talang Kelapa Kab. Banyuasin
Sumatera Selatan

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 235
 HEAD OF BNN REGULATIONS AND
MOUs IMPLEMENTED IN 2017

1. Head of BNN Regulations issued in 2017.

Head of BNN Regulations enacted in 2017 :

NUMBER & NUMBER & DATE OF

NO. TITLE DATE OF STATE NOTE
REGULATION ANNOUNCEMENT
1 2 3 4 5
1. Head of BNN Regulation No. Number 2 of State Announcement
2 of 2017 on Ceremonial 2017 RI of 2016 No. 131
Procedures in the National Dated 17 daated 18 January
Narcotics Board January 2017 2017
2. Head of BNN Regulation Number 3 of State Announcement
Number 3 of 2017 on 2017 RI of 2016 No. 174
Technical Guidelines of Dated 17 dated 27 January
Narcotic Precursors January 2017 2017
Supervision
3. Head of BNN Regulation Numbrr 4 of State Announvement ..
Number 4 of 2017 on 2017 RI of 2017 No. 280
Guidelines for Settlement of Dated 25 dated 13 February
State Compensation as a January 2017 2017
result of Treasury Deficiency
within the National Narcotics
Board
4. Head of BNN Regulation Number 5 of State Announcement
Number 5 of 2017 on 2017 RI of 2017 No. 258
Procedures for Internal dated 8 dated 10 February
Affairs within the National February 2017 2017
Narcotics Board
5. Head of BNN Regulation No. Number 6 of Stat Announcement
6 of 2017 on the Guidelines 2017 RI of 2017 No. 389
for Codefication of the dated 13 dated 8 February
Segment of Expenditure February 2017 2017
Account within the National
Narcotics Board
6. Head of BNN Regulation No. Number 7 of State Announcement
7 of 2017 on the Fourth 2017 RI of 2017 No. 389
Amendment of Head of dated 21 dated 8 February
National Narcotics Board No Februayi 2017 2017
3 of 2015 on the
Organization and Work
Procedures of BNN Province
and BNN Regency/City
7. Head of BNN Regulation Number 7 of State Announcement
Number 7 of 2017 on 2016 dated 21 RI of 2017 No. 395
Investigation of Money February 2017 dated 10 March
Laundering Crimes from the 2017
origin of Narcotics and
Narcotics Precursors Crimes

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 236
 1 2 3 4 5
8. Head of BNN Regulation Numbrr 8 of State Announcement
Number 8 of 2017 on the 2017 dated 21 RI of 2017 No.396
Amendment of Head of BNN February 2017 daated 10 February
Regulation Number 3 of 2017
2014 on the Organization
and Work Procedures of
BNN Rehabilitation House
9. Head of BNN Regulation Number 9 of State Announcement
Number 9 of 2017 on the 2017 dated 16 RI of 2017 No. 436
Guidelines for March 2017 dated 20 March 2017
Whistleblowing System
10. Head of BNN Regulation Number 10 of State Announcement
Number 10 of 2017 on the 2017 dated 20 RI of 2017 No.604
Handling of Conflict of April 2017 dated 25 April 2017
Interest within the National
Narcotics Board
11. Head of BNN Regulation Number 11 of State Announcement
Number 11 of 2017 on the 2017 dated 26 RI of 2017 Number
Control of Gratification April 2017 640 dated 8 May
within the National Narcotics 2017
Board
12. Head of BNN Regulation Number 12 of State Accouncement
Number 12 of 2017 on the 2017 dated 6 RI Number 814 of
Guidelines for Follow-up June 2017 2017 dated 9 June
Monitoring on the Results of 2017
Examination/Supervison of
the Financial Review Body
(BPK) and BNN Government
Internal Supervision
Apparatus
13. Head of BNN Regulation umber 13 of State Announcement
Number 13 of 2017 on the 2017 daated 16 RI of 2017 Number
Organization of Government June 2017 924 tanggal 7 July
Internal Control System 2017
14. Head of BNN Regulation Number 14 of State Announcement
Number 14 of 2017 on the 2017 dated 22 RI of 2017 Number
Filling of Positions by June 2017 884 dated 07 July
Indonesia Army Soldiers 2017
15. Head of BNN Regulation Numberr 15 of State Announcement
Number 15 of 2017 on the 2017 dated RI of 2017 Number
Application of Risk 10 July 2017 976 dated 17 July
Management within the 2017
National Narcotics Board

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 237
 1 2 3 4 5
16. Head of BNN Regulation Nomberr 16 of State Announcement
Number 16 of 2017 on Legal 2017 datedl 26 RI of 2017 Number
Assistance September 2017 1394 dated 5
October 2017
17. Head of BNN Regulation Number 17 of State Announcement
Number 17 of 2017 on the 2017 dated 5 RI of 2017 Number
Grand Design of October 2017 1438 dated 17
Technological Information October 2017
and Communication of the
National Narcotics Board
2016-2019
18. Head of BNN Regulation Number 18 of State Announcement
Number 18 of 2017 on the 2017 dated 16 RI of 2017 Number
Guidelines for Preparation of October 2017 1517 dated 31
the Annual Plan of Activities October 2017
and Budget within the
National Narcotics Board
19. Head of BNN Regulation umber 19 of State Announcement
Number 19 of 2017 on the 2017 dated 10 RI of 2017 Number
Guidelines for Payment of November 2017 1633 dated 17
Performane Allowance for November 2017
BNN Employees

2. DMoU Signed by BNN in 2017

Hereunder is the list of MoUs signed by BNN with overseas and domestic parties
in 2017:
a. Overseas.

NO. DESCRIPTION TOPIC DATE

1 2 3 4
1. MoU between BNN RI – Memorandum of 12 October 2017
Laos Understanding between The
Government of the Republic
of Indonesia and the
Government of Lao PDR on
the Cooperation in Freventing
and in Combating Illicit
Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs.
Psychotropic Substances and
Their Precursors

b. Domestic .
VALIDITY EXPIRATION
NO. DESCRIPTION TOPIC
PERIOD PERIOD
1 2 3 4 5
1. MoU between BNN – Central P4GN and Money 11 January 11 January
BNN Reporting and Analysis of Laundering Crimes 2017 2022
Financial Transactions
2. MoU between BNN – Angkasa P4GN 17 February 17 February
Pura I 2017 2019

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 238
 1 2 3 4 5
3. MoU between BNN – Attorney Coordination in the 20 20 February
General Office RI Implementation of Task February 2020
and Function 2017
4. Cooperation Agreement Education and Training 20 20 February
between BNN Deputy of for Law Enforcement February 2020
Community Empowerment - Apparatus 2017
Education and Training Body of
Prosecutor Office RI
5. Cooperation Agreement Asset Recovery 20 20 February
between BNN Deputy of February 2020
Eradication and Junior Attorney 2017
General of Development.
Attorney General Offie RI
6. Cooperation Agreement Handling of Law Issues 20 20 February
between BNN Deputy of Law and related to Civil Affairs February 2020
Cooperation - Junior Attorney of and State Administration 2017
Civil Affairs and State
Administration. Attorney General
Office RI
7. Cooperation Agreement P4GN 28 19
between BNN – National Agency February November
for the Control of Drugs and Food 2017 2019
8. MoU between BNN –and P4GN 9 March 9 March
Provincial Assembly RI 2017 2019
9. Cooperation Agreement Prevention of Drug 25 May 25 May
between BNN – PT. Seratus Abuse in Evencio 2017 2022
Sejahtera (Deputy of Prevention) Margonda Apartment
Cooperation Agreement Community 25 May 25 ayi 2022
between BNN – PT. Seratus Empowerment related 2017
Sejahtera (Deputy of Community to P4GN
Empowerment)
10. MoU between BNN – Ministry of P4GN 8 May 8 May 2019
State Apparatus & RB 2017
11. Coopration Agreement between Dissemination of P4GN 15 May 15 May
BNN – Universitas Information through 2017 2022
Trisakti/Trisakti University Videotron
12. MoU between BNN – P4GN 16 May 16 May
TeleCommunication Service 2017 2020
Provider
13. Cooperation Agreement
Utilization of Access 16 May 16 May
between BNN - PT.
Codes for SMS using the 2017 2020
TeleCommunication Seluler. PT. number 1784 for SMS
Indosat. Tbk. PT. XL Axiata. Tbk.
Center as a means of
PT. Hutchison3 Indonesia Community complaints
in the implementation of
P4GN.
14. MoU netween BNN – Bank A Program called “Be 13 July 13 July 2018
Rakyat Indonesia Aware of the Dangers of 2017
Drugs together with BRI”
to educate children
15. MoU between BNN – Ministry of Organizing a Youth. 21 July 21 July 2021
Youth and Sports R Sports and Boyscout 2017
program in the
Prevention of Drug
Abuse and Eradication of
Illicit Trafficking in
Narcotics and Narcotic
Precursors.
Cooperation Agreement Impementating an Anti 21 July 31 Dec 2017
between BNN – Ministry of Drug Training for Youth 201 7
Youthand Sports RI Cadres
16. MoU between BNN – Indonesia P4GN 14 August 14 August
National Nurse Union 2017 2020

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 239
 1 2 3 4 5
17. Cooperation Agreement Community empowerment in the
between BNN Deputy of Prevention and Eradication of
Community Narcotics and Narcotic Precursors
Empowerment – PT. Abuse and Illicit Trafficking
Citylink
Cooperation agreement Corporate Rate Flight Ticket 7 Sep 2017
between Bureau of
Finance BNN Principal
Secretariat– PT. Citylink
18. MoU between BNN – PT. Character Development of Human 12 12
Arga Bangun Bangsa Resources through P4GN September September
Motivation Training 2017 2022
19. MoU between BNN – P4GN 10 10
Ministry of October October
Transportation RI 2017 2022
20. MoU between BNN – PT. P4GN including Provision of and 25 25
Bank Mandiri (Persero). Utilization of Banking services October October
Tbk 2017 2022
21. Cooperation Agreement Flight service 1 October 30
between Bureau of 2017 September
Finance BNN Principal 2018
Secretariat– PT. Garuda
Indonesia
22. Cooperation agreement Placement of State Finance STAN 31 31
between BNN – Ministry Poly-technic graduates of 2017 October October
of Finance RI outside the Ministry of Finance RI 2017 2022
who have passed the selection of
Basic Competence
23. MoU between BNN – PT. P4GN 6 6
Prima Buana Internusa November November
2017 2020
24. MoU between BNN – P4GN 13 Nov 13 Nov
Asperindo 2017 2021
25. Cooperation agreement Role of LDII in P4GN 3 3
between BNN – LDII Desember Desember
(Deputy of Community 2017 2020
Empowerment)
26. Cooperation agreement Evaluation of Rehabilitation and 5 22 May
between BNN – Post Rehabilitation service December 2020
University of Indonesia Program 2017
(Deputy of
Rehabilitation)
27. MoU between BNN – P4GN 12 Dec 12 Dec
Ministry of Manpower 2017 2022
and Transmigration RI
28. MoU between BNN – BSN Building and Development of 18 18
Standardization and Conformity Desember Desember
Assessment in the Prevention and 2017 2022
Eradication of Drug Abuse and
Eradication of Illicit Trafficking in
Narcotics and Narcotic Precursors
29. MoU between BNN – PT. P4GN 19 Dec 19 Dec
Pelindo III 2017 2019
30. MoU between BNN – Grant and Lease of Land owned by 19 19
MNC Land PT. Lido Nirwana Parahyang-an to December December
support Prevention and 2017 2019
Eradication of Illicit Trafficking in
Narcotics and Narcotic Precursors
31. MoU between BNN - Cooperation in the University’s Tri 20 20
Universitas Unsyiah Darma in relation with P4GN December December
2017 2022

Journal of Data Center of Research, Data and Information Year 2018 240