SHOULD WE DRUG TEST OUR CHILDREN?

More than half of our kids use an illegal substance before they graduate
from high school. If children are subjected to random drug testing, goes
the logic, testing might stop their drug use, or at least serve as a red
flag to their parents who can then turn the kids around.

But random drug testing doesn't work in the way that its advocates hope it
will. Random drug tests do not answer the critical questions of how much,
or even what, a kid has been taking, or how often. Testing does not
discriminate between kids who experiment and kids who are seriously
involved with drugs. Testing can be inaccurate.

A crafty child can sabotage it. Testing ignores the most medically
devastating drugs, tobacco and alcohol. But most instructive of all,
scientific data show that random drug testing does not reduce drug use.

A 2003 survey of 722 secondary American schools involving 76,000 students
by the University of Michigan found virtually identical rates of drug use
in schools that have drug testing and schools that do not.

The problem with random testing is that not all of our kids use drugs, and
even the ones who are at greatest danger are in the minority. So should we
treat all kids as guilty until proven innocent?

As a physician who has drug tested patients thousands of times, my response
is simple: no drug tests without reasonable suspicion.

The trick with drug testing children is to balance the desire to keep our
children safe on the one hand, and protect their rights of privacy and
freedom from illegal searches on the other. Remember, children have rights,
too.

In 2002, the Supreme Court heard the case brought by high school student
Lindsay Earls against her Board of Education. As a member of the Tecumseh
High School marching band, she was required to submit to random urine
checks. Earls knew she was drug free, and defended her privacy. She
correctly felt that being in a marching band did not automatically put her
at risk for drugs. The National Education Association and the American
Academy of Pediatrics supported her case.

But in a 5 to 4 decision, the Court ruled against the high school student.
Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas argued that schools have a greater
interest in protecting children than maintaining their privacy. The four
dissenting justices called the drug test program "capricious, even
perverse." The dissenters further noted that the Tecumseh drug testing
policy invaded the privacy of students who need deterrence the least, kids
motivated to take part in extracurricular activities, while keeping kids at
risk away from activities that might actually keep them off of drugs.

Despite the Earls case, there has been no stampede by schools to drug test
our kids. One optimistically thinks that common sense may be loose in the
land. Variations on drug testing have been proposed, such as having parents
"register" their children for random testing in schools. Results would go
to the parents, and parents would be educated regarding treatment options.

We're on the right track, but the solution is really far simpler than most
people would believe. A clean kid does not need to be drug tested. A kid
involved in drugs usually doesn't, either, since a parent can usually see
the red flags of drug abuse if they just take a close look.

So is there a place for drug testing our kids? Sure, when a parent has
suspicion of drug use, or when a kid has something to prove. Otherwise, the
best drug test I know is the hug-and-sniff when they walk through the front
door, with a heart to heart for a eye-opener the following morning. The
strongest weapon we have to combat drug use in our children is not the
chemistry lab, but heads-up parenting.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Dr. Henry David Abraham's recent book is "What's a Parent
to Do? Straight Talk about Drugs and Alcohol." Dr. Abraham's website is
www.drabraham.com.)