Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

7 Reasons Parents Should Not Test Kids for Drug Use

By Lindsay Lyon, U.S. News & World Report. Posted August 7, 2008.


Why experts say drug testing should be left to the professionals.
Advertisement

When Kim Manlove and his wife discovered that their teenage son was abusing pot and alcohol, they did what they thought was right: They purchased commercially available drug-testing kits and began administering random urine screens at home. "We thought we'd be able to handle it on our own," recalls Manlove, 56, of Indianapolis. And for several months it appeared that their efforts were working. The drug tests, obtained on the Internet, consistently indicated that 15-year-old David was alcohol free and that his marijuana levels were decreasing, which they interpreted as a sign that he was quitting. Not so. Their son had switched to drugs that the tests couldn't detect, such as prescription pills and LSD. When his parents finally caught on, they enrolled him in treatment. "Things were beyond our capability," says Manlove.

David completed the program, but his desire to get high ultimately cost him his life, Manlove explains. Enticed by the notion that inhalants wouldn't register on his weekly, now professionally administered urine tests, David and his friends spent an afternoon huffing an aerosol (computer duster) and diving into a swimming pool because they'd heard the underwater pressure would heighten the rush. Instead, doing so triggered what's known as "sudden sniffing death syndrome," the gravest consequence of inhalants. David had a heart attack and drowned at age 16.

The Manloves' experience underscores some of the pitfalls of at-home drug testing, an increasingly popular practice among parents aiming to stop or prevent their child's drug use. And with countless test kits available, experts say that it's an increasingly difficult practice to resist--though parents should.

"I don't recommend that parents ever use home drug tests," says pediatrician Sharon Levy, director of the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program at Children's Hospital Boston. "[They're] going to be misled." The tests are often billed as preventive, but there's no evidence that they actually keep kids away from drugs, she adds. Levy's stance is echoed by numerous others, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, which issued a 2007 statement opposing home and school drug testing until further research is done. In hindsight, Manlove agrees: "I'd go straight to the professionals, no question," he says. "Shame" and "embarrassment" are the primary reasons that he and his wife didn't seek help sooner.

Here are seven reasons why experts say drug testing should be left to the professionals:

1. It can become a missed opportunity. Manlove, who now works as a substance abuse prevention specialist for the state of Indiana, believes that the six months that elapsed between he and his wife's initial discovery of David's drug use and their procuring outside help allowed a minor problem to become major. "That delay really worked against us," he says. "If we had sought professional help earlier, I think we would have had a better chance of preventing this outcome."

2. It's easy to cheat. With all the ways to cheat urine screens, says Levy, experts worry that parents could be falsely reassured by negative drug tests while their kid actually has a problem. "My clinical experience tells me that parents are fooled all the time," she says. Furthermore, Levy says parents aren't encouraged to watch their adolescents urinate--but some testing facilities can require that urine collection is witnessed by an observer to prevent tampering. "We do it under controlled circumstances, and we know the tricks of the trade," says Peter Rogers, a clinical professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University medical school who conducts substance abuse testing. That's why, he says, if a drug test is warranted, it should be handled by experienced professionals.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: children, parents, drug testing

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Not even for professionals!!!
Posted by: elidude420 on Aug 7, 2008 10:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The seven reasons stated in this article are reason enough to dismantle the entire drug-testing industry, professional or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not even for professionals!!! Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
Reason #7
Posted by: Setnakt on Aug 7, 2008 10:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reason #7 was enough for me. That and the fact I view any and all such tests administered by anyone, on anyone else, for any "reason", to be nothing short of slavery, a major human rights violation. An attempt to exorcise ownership over another's flesh and blood as this is can be viewed as nothing short of slavery to any educated sane non-tyrant. And I sure as hell do not support any form of slavery, even on strangers, let alone on my own kids(!). It's enough reason for me to never do business with Wal Mart or any "drug"(ie: pot)-testing slave-company. So how could I possiably be such a monstorous hyprocrite to violate my own kids human rights and switch from being a parent to being a slave owner? The answer is obviously (I hope) I couldn't, and didn't. Becides not all use is "abuse". When I found my then 15 year old daughter was using marijuana I was more concerned her use wasn't abuse, her health wasn't impacted, nor her grades. I was equally concerned she didn't do actual drugs (marijuana is a plant not a "drug" by actual definition). And that we maintained a good open relationship, none of which could happen if I choose to become a worthless hyprocrite prick. So I didn't. As a result she never did actual drugs, never abused pot (was/is only an occasional user~weekends a little), and had good enough grades to get a full college scholarship. She's 20 now and doing excellent thanks to my NOT following the example of the facist police state/nation we live in. Ether your on your kid's side, or your on the outside and no better than the cowardly punk pig/police thugs and Big Brother Orwellian government. There is no being a little of both, period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eason #7 Posted by: john mont
» RE: Reason #7 Posted by: Setnakt
» RE: eason #7 Posted by: donl51
#7
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 9, 2008 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like Setnakt says, #7 is the only one that matters.

If Sally the Soccer Mom wants to play Big Brother, maybe she should consider a career in the CIA, FBI, KGB, or Blackwater, and stop screwing up her kids.

Most of the kids who did drugs during the 60s survived it without their parents spying on them and micromanaging their lives with all of the latest surveillance gadgets. And those who didn't survive probably had other problems and weren't destined to live long anyway.

Nobody seems to see the downside of today's parenting methods. And now, I'd like to refer you to Mr. Dennis Leary for further information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EGCwPXDR-0

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: #7 Posted by: Setnakt
dwatso2
Posted by: dwatso2 on Aug 9, 2008 3:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a trained addictions counselor, I have to disagree with what the other professionals are proposing. I have worked with adolescents, and I often saw a number of youth who were brought in for services that either could have benefited from more involved parents and/or were just experimenting with drugs and alcohol. In many cases, treatment was a substitute for parents needing to take the time out and build a relationship with their children and be more involved in their lives. Additionally, there was often a outstanding youth who would be brought into treatment after their parents found the first evidence of drug use. The youth in question were often good students who were involved in their schools and communities that were maybe smoking a little marijuana as an experiment. These kids would come in having barely entered the world of drug use and would leave 28 days later often believing the label of "addict" that had been thrust upon them and having better drug connections from which they could access substances they may have never even heard of before coming to treatment. I'm not saying that in patient treatment does not have its place, but I am recommending family therapy as a place to start if you want to seek professional treatment, rather than locking your kid up and possibly giving them the extra push they need to truly develop a problem. Also, it pays to keep in mind that being a drug user does not make someone a bad person and that use is not the same thing as addiction. 80% of drug users are fully functional and contributing members of society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's a concept...
Posted by: IntnsRed on Aug 9, 2008 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a concept that seems to be verboten in the US.

How about spending time with your kid(s), talking with them, and maybe even doing the same thing with their friends?!

Of course, that may throw a monkey wrench into the time you spend at work and that all-important climb-to-nowhere up the corporate ladder, and it may even interrupt your TV watching time and your other activities. But if that's so, ask yourself where and what the hell are your priorities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here's a concept... Posted by: clvngodess
» RE: Here's a concept... Posted by: Karina
The Policies of a Parent
Posted by: Godfather89 on Aug 9, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My father comes in my room like the friggin gestapo or some crap like that. I cant stand it, So I tell them stop policing my life if and when I have kids and they reach that age when drugs and shit like that are in hand I will tell them:

1. I DONT EVER WANT TO SEE YOU DO IT! (Not like tobacco or alcohol in moderate uses but other drugs like pot)

2. IF YOU DO ANYTHING YOU BETTER BE SO FRIGGIN RESPONSIBLE!

3. IF I CATCH YOU IN YOUR ROOM OR SOME SHIT LIKE THAT WE GONNA HAVE ANOTHER TALK!

4. I DONT WANT TO SEE YOU BECOME A DRUGGIE or SOME SHIT LIKE THAT, SO MODERATE YOURSELF, BE RESPONSIBLE!

I will tell them if you can agree with me on that much, than I promise not to be like some secret police man in your life, like my father the Gestapo.

On that note, it is my belief that kids (teens) need to be able to grow upon their experiences good or bad. I will of course, raise my children in a way to be critical of their actions and others actions as well as have some level of introspection.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Truth
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Aug 9, 2008 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Best thing you can do is be best friends with your kid, participate in their activities and most importantly KNOW who they hang around as friends have a LOT of influence.

JT
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We never learn
Posted by: bryangalt on Aug 9, 2008 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bottom line is we all will have to find our way through this life on our own. Yes, we have friends and families that influence us, but that final decision to hit the pipe or snort that line or drop that hit comes down to the individual's choice, one that no one else can make for him/her.

As humans, we have several things that work both for and against us: desire to try and overwhelming curiosity about the existence we call life. This is how we all have to burn our finger to discover what it feels like. This is why we all experiement with drugs, sexuality, individuality, etc., in our clumsy efforts to find our niche and our path.

Do some of us lose along the way? Yep. Will this ever change? Nope. You see, not even the Bible has the balls to say life is fair, life is easy or that life is going to give you a break because you're only 12 years old!

There is no amount of legal restraints that can be legislated that will change our basic makeup. We as a race have always used drugs for a variety of reasons (and we do so now more than ever before in our history). Will some of us be lost along the way? Yep.

Nature made us and she can be a bitch about it at times. If we can accept this, then perhaps we could solve other problems and stop trying to "fix" something that ain't broken...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's first overturn the ban on Cannabis and stop settling for petroleum manufactured junk food.
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 9, 2008 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you know that if you eat grass/hemp fed meat and diary products instead of the typical corn/grain fed versions, our auto immune systems would be better and not have to rely on drug testing? In addition, did you know that most junk food comes stuffed with dangerous chemicals that can impair your system in the long run if not at first site? Instead of buying fast food junk, let's all try to give local food products some say as they are most often the healthier type anyway. Let's save the taxpayers more money from Big Pharma and Insurance and stop rendering our dollar worthless please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wow thanks for that!
Posted by: deborama on Aug 9, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
first time I've ever heard of someone who makes their living in the addiction industry admitting that drug use is NOT A PROBLEM for most drug users (just as alcohol use is not a problem for most alcohol users).

I'm 49 and I've been smoking pot for 32 years. I have two academic degrees from fine schools, have had many responsible jobs, have two beautiful, healthy, non-brain damaged children (now 20 and 21). Pot has been a very positive thing in my life, helping my anxiety and depression much more than any of the ELEVEN anti-depressants I've been prescribed (all of which were ineffective at best and resulted in horrific side effects at worst).

Drug USE is not drug ABUSE. Drug USE is not addiction. Drug USE in and of itself is simply not a problem. Like anything (food, sex, exercise, work) it can be overdone and a few so-inclined individuals may have a propensity to get in trouble due to their poor impulse control or lack of will.

But please, that's no reason to consider users with normal lives "addicts" or "druggies."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The elephant in room
Posted by: TRC on Aug 9, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, the elephant in this conversational room is the fact that kids today are taking far more "legal" anti-ADD, anti-depressant, anti-anxiety drugs which are, in many cases more dangerous than recreational drugs of today and yesteryear. The fact that many of these legal drugs are administered for years, sometimes decades in kids, altering their brain chemistry sometimes permentently, is a travesty - all driven by greedy pharmaceutical corporations.
Not much different than the pusher but much more pernicious because of the prevelance and assumption of medical acceptability.
When I was a teen ager I experimented with recreational drugs and grew out of it after only a few years. I imagine if I had been labeled an addict I would have probably been more inclined to behave like one.
Many of the comments are correct, I think, when they say parental disengagement is the basis of the problem.
TRC

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Failed War on Drugs
Posted by: pbullwinkle on Aug 9, 2008 12:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another unnecessary death directly attributable to the hypocritical, unsuccessful U.S. led war on drugs. Those parents, freaked out by government lies and propaganda, push their son away from using a non-toxic, relatively harmless substance, cannabis, which has many proven benefits, into using a deadly chemical inhalent. That is the true crime in this story: the failure of those parents to use science-based evidence to educate their son honestly about all drugs, rather than treating him like a criminal for youthful experimentation and wanting to get "high" like almost everyone else, whatever their choice of drug, from caffeine to nicotine to alchohol to sugar, all of which are far more deadly than cannabis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reason #8: It drives kids to more dangerous but untestable drugs
Posted by: PaulK on Aug 9, 2008 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Airplane glue (toluene) is everywhere, it's not testable, it gets kids drunk for a few seconds, and it kills brain cells. Chronic glue sniffing kids are, historically, deadbrains for life.

Some variants are kids who huff Glade air freshener out of plastic bags (Gladeators), kids who sniff out of those room air freshener dispensers (note a current Johnson's TV commercial showing a 12 year old actually sniffing the dispenser and getting stoned for a couple of seconds), kids who huff housepaint, lots of things. Some dummies even leave air freshener cans around in church camp bathrooms, just to show the world how stupid they are.

Glade cans carry clear (?) warning labels: "Keep out of reach of children and teens." I am not making this warning label up. So how high can teenagers reach? Can't kids buy these cans at the convenience store? Sure!

So, test for pot. Who's the deadbrain now?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A wrinkle - "detecting" drug use is different from "monitoring" drug use in an established addict...
Posted by: mjabele on Aug 9, 2008 5:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, I'll agree with the general premise of this article that whether or not one is trying to detect or to monitor, it probably isn't the parents who should be doing this. I'd agree with #7 as the primary reason for holding off on that idea.

As a physician, I certainly DO order drug tests on individuals, both for the purpose of detecting as well as monitoring drug use. I realize that AlterNet is a deeply liberal forum, but I certainly won't hesitate to defend ordering a drug screen on an ER patient who presents with confusion, respiratory failure, or severe chest pain that might well be cocaine-induced. Detecting drug use in such scenarios is invaluable in making a proper diagnosis as well as undertaking appropriate therapeutic interventions. Failure to tell a patient with cardiac chest pain that cocaine is the most likely cause of their symptoms can literally be lethal, after all, given that in the absence of such counseling they'll be likely to use again and experience similar episodes.

MONITORING drug use is something that I only undertake in a patient with an established / admitted drug problem, and ALWAYS with the patient's signed consent. I've literally never - not once - had a problem with obtaining such consent, though presumably some posters on this forum will express outrage at the very idea that I should be doing this. The point here is that I'm typically treating these patients with another controlled substance - buprenorphine (Suboxone) or methadone - FOR their addiction problem, and it's essential for both me and the patient to know whether the treatment is effective. Patients who continue to abuse their drug of choice - or, alternatively, a different drug that has known, potentially lethal interactions with the drug I'm prescribing - are literally putting themselves at risk of death. As a physician, I view it as unethical to prescribe ANY medication without proper monitoring of efficacy and / or side effects, and I make that clear to patients when the initial treatment contract is signed.

Assuming I run into a patient someday with an addiction problem who doesn't want to comply with such monitoring, they're certainly free to refuse. On the other hand, I don't view myself as under any ethical obligation in such circumstances to prescribe the "treatment drug", either.

The article is more specific in terms of what it's trying to cover, but I think posters who argue that ANY sort of drug testing is ALWAYS inappropriate need to get a reality check. Certainly, a vast number of patients I see in my daily practice disagree with this point of view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

education vs verboten
Posted by: richholland on Aug 10, 2008 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My son and daughter in their teens on birthdays and partys tried alcohol and marihuana and tobacco..

My son was real drunk 1 time at 13 and my daughter smoked some weed at 15.

Nowadays at 35/40 they donot smoke at only drink at occasionals.

The french Mr.Montaignac is an advocate of training children to enjoy and handle drinking wine.

Education vs brainwashing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yer not from 'round here Posted by: hurricane hugo
ANOTHER SWELL IDEA FROM THE "UNITER"
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 10, 2008 2:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This Admin. has managed to turn people against others in a way that hasn't happened since the Civil War. And now, children against parents? They're naturally rebellious anyway and they should be. It's a part of growing up. Parents are not the police. Home is a place where we all go to be safe and secure not to be interrogated and drug tested. I believe it would do more harm than good. Some kids just wouldn't come home. It's a horrible idea. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The War On Drugs
Posted by: doneman2000 on Aug 10, 2008 5:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is the biggest fraud to ever have been perpetrated on its citizens by its government. It continues with John "the pot today is 1000 times more potent than we were kids" Walters. How many lives have you and your propaganda cut short to drive your agenda and FAILED bureaucracy into the 21st century? My God I would have hoped we were smarter than this and yet there was enough stupidity to get the WORST president ever re-elected. Europe anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The War On Drugs Posted by: ohjeezigotaids
» RE: The War On Drugs Posted by: richholland
» RE: The War On Drugs Posted by: mclame01
LET THE KIDS HAVE A LITTLE FUN
Posted by: mclame01 on Aug 12, 2008 1:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all did. Just educate them a little on the bad ones like Crack and Meth. Sit down and smoke some salvia or do some shrooms with them. It'l do you both good and promote trust and openess. Live a little!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not a bad article, but let me fix the title for you.
Posted by: rickiey on Aug 12, 2008 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
7 Reasons that parenst should not rely on drug tests to do their parenting for them.

Ok, if you have a problem kid, and you want to test them for drugs, there's nothing wrong with doing it.

But, as evidenced in the story above, if that is ALL you are doing, then you are failing as parent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What About Cival Rights??
Posted by: chivakenevil_666 on Aug 18, 2008 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The liberties and rights promised to Americans have been a load of shite. Prohibition is the most unamerican concept of today. Europeans came to the US to escape religious persecution and to be 'free'. They were persecuted for having different religious ideals and basically for not conforming to British rule. Origionally the bill of rights states guaranteed Americans the right to life and liberty, as well as the pursuit of happines. Well, so much for American freedoms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]