Should Parents Consider Teen Drug Testing?
Some school athletic programs routinely test all athletes for drug use. But should parents test their children when they have their own suspicions?
A series of court cases dating back to the late 1980s has made it largely legal and, apparently, culturally acceptable for high school athletic programs to insist that all participants in sports submit to urinalysis to detect illegal drug use. The courts determined that participation in sports is a voluntary activity therefore the search itself was not an involuntary invasion of privacy. In a 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the goal to reduce serious drug use and disciplinary problems was one of several reasons given for allowing these teen drug tests.
But what about testing a teenager on the suspicion of drug use? Outside of law enforcement, many parents pursue teen drug testing when they believe a child is using marijuana, ecstasy, crystal methamphetamines or other controlled substances. Is the practice legal, warranted, advised – and effective?
Many of these questions have to answered on an individual basis – what works in one family with one child might not work with another. But the legal issues are well defined and the experience of some families might help other parents who consider drug testing one of their children.
Teen drug testing: Should be overt but can be blind
There are basically two means of drug testing an individual. One is through urinalysis, the other is by hair analysis. Hair can more accurately indicate past drug use, where urine (used more often) reveals recent ingestion of controlled substances (with variation – the presence of heroin may be two to three days, longer with habitual use, while marijuana may be present for several weeks if use is regular).
Hair could be collected without the tested individual's knowledge, but it would require about 100 hairs to get an accurate reading. This makes it less usable for testing a younger person (body hair works, but most teens have limited body hair compared to adults). Urine, for obvious reasons, needs the consent of the person being tested.
The test, therefore, pretty much needs to be conducted with the teenager's willing participation. The test can be conducted blindly – that is, the drug testing center does not need to know or maintain records of the identity of the individual being tested. This alleviates test subjects' concerns about creating a permanent record.
Most family counselors feel the test is part of a larger conversation. It's not just about the test, but about how parents and a child interact before and after the test. When a parent insists on a test – perhaps on an ongoing basis – it should be one component of many elements of the parent-teen relationship.
Some school athletic programs routinely test all athletes for drug use. But should parents test their children when they have their own suspicions?
A series of court cases dating back to the late 1980s has made it largely legal and, apparently, culturally acceptable for high school athletic programs to insist that all participants in sports submit to urinalysis to detect illegal drug use. The courts determined that participation in sports is a voluntary activity therefore the search itself was not an involuntary invasion of privacy. In a 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the goal to reduce serious drug use and disciplinary problems was one of several reasons given for allowing these teen drug tests.
But what about testing a teenager on the suspicion of drug use? Outside of law enforcement, many parents pursue teen drug testing when they believe a child is using marijuana, ecstasy, crystal methamphetamines or other controlled substances. Is the practice legal, warranted, advised – and effective?
Many of these questions have to answered on an individual basis – what works in one family with one child might not work with another. But the legal issues are well defined and the experience of some families might help other parents who consider drug testing one of their children.
Teen drug testing: Should be overt but can be blind
There are basically two means of drug testing an individual. One is through urinalysis, the other is by hair analysis. Hair can more accurately indicate past drug use, where urine (used more often) reveals recent ingestion of controlled substances (with variation – the presence of heroin may be two to three days, longer with habitual use, while marijuana may be present for several weeks if use is regular).
Hair could be collected without the tested individual's knowledge, but it would require about 100 hairs to get an accurate reading. This makes it less usable for testing a younger person (body hair works, but most teens have limited body hair compared to adults). Urine, for obvious reasons, needs the consent of the person being tested.
The test, therefore, pretty much needs to be conducted with the teenager's willing participation. The test can be conducted blindly – that is, the drug testing center does not need to know or maintain records of the identity of the individual being tested. This alleviates test subjects' concerns about creating a permanent record.
Most family counselors feel the test is part of a larger conversation. It's not just about the test, but about how parents and a child interact before and after the test. When a parent insists on a test – perhaps on an ongoing basis – it should be one component of many elements of the parent-teen relationship.
SHARE
