National Parole Board (NPB) and CSC policies indicate that prisoners will be re-assessed for risk each time they violate a condition of their parole (such as a positive urinalysis test). In the case of drugs, risk base is determined by the degree in which substance abuse has been a factor in the prisoner’s criminal history. The NPB has the authority not to suspend an individual for cannabis use, alternatively providing enhanced counseling and treatment. The NPB may make a “no action” decision, add a new condition to the prisoner’s parole agreement, or modify an existing condition, or it may take the extreme step of revoking the prisoner’s release (Crowley 2001).

Each violation is assessed on a case-by-case basis, repeated positive tests for cannabis often result in increasingly harsh sanctions. Parole officers have considerably less discretion than the NPB. For example, it is mandatory, for parole officers to report any violation of parole conditions and submit recommendations concerning their perception of the risk factor for the prisoner returning to criminal activity. However, the NPB has the authority to accept or refuse the parole officer’s recommendations. The National Parole Board has some discretion in parole decisions, but attention raised by providing repeated positive tests for cannabis use in the community are likely lead to revocation of parole even in the face of other positive behavior.

Over time, the increased attention toward a prisoner for positive urinalysis tests may eventually lead the Parole Board to suspend or revoke community release. Recently, the Globe and Mail newspaper released an article stating that CSC is considering removal of THC testing in their community urinalysis program (Malarek 2002). This would allow responsible users of cannabis to continue use despite multiple positive tests potentially preventing a return to the institution.⁴ According to the suggested policy change, those prisoners whose cannabis use is identified as a direct contributing factor to criminal behavior would continue to be tested and assessed on a ‘risk’ scale by the NPB.

Are current sanctions for cannabis use protecting the community at large from a great harm and dramatically improving the ability of prisoners to reintegrate into the community? Graham Stewart of the John Howard Society of Canada writes:

We have been critical of the present strategy which emphasizes enforcement and control at the expense of prevention and treatment. We feel that the evidence relating to the benefits of the “war on drugs” approach which emphasize[s] enforcement and control is questionable at best. The costs include loss of family contact, employment/training and other “privileges” which can improve the prisoners chances of success in the community on release and…more injection drug use which increases the risk of very serious health problems – HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C…A further concern relates to prisoners who want to stop using drugs but are reluctant to go for treatment for fear that their admission of drug use will affect their privileges within the institutions and their chances for release on parole (quoted in Jürgens 1996:21).

⁴ Predictably, conservative elements in Canadian society, including the Canadian Police Association and the Union of Prison Guards severely criticized the suggested change in testing policy stating that such a change would negatively affect safety and security both in prison and in the community.