Teen drug tests raise questions

Monday, Oct. 28, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- President Clinton's proposal for drug testing young drivers is welcomed by parents, police and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

But those who run state motor vehicles departments wonder who would pay for the tests and how much they would bog down an already-cumbersome licensing process. And some drug experts question the effectiveness.

"We are not quite in a position to comment on what the costs would be or what the impact would be," said Linda Lewis of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. "However, we are going to be tracking this one very closely."

Clinton broached the plan during a recent weekly radio address, referring to increased drug use among the nation's youth -- more than double what it was when Clinton took office, according to some national surveys.

"Our message should be: No drugs or no license," Clinton said.

The president said administration officials will work out mechanics of the plan over the next three months. One of the first thing states will want to know is whether Washington will help fund the new procedures or if license fees will have to increase to cover costs.

Lewis said Washington before has underwritten costs of mandates dealing with vehicle and driver licensing, but she does not know how Clinton's plan would work. Costs could be substantial. Drug tests normally run between $30 and $50, depending on the type of test.

The most common type is urinalysis, which can detect drugs that have been in the system no more than five days. Hair analysis, where a few strands are snipped from the head, can detect drug vestiges as long as 90 days after use.

Gordon Absher, public information officer for the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, said the Clinton proposal is "too vague" to comment on at this time.

"I'm not saying we are either for or against it," he said.

But he did say it would mean additional staff and that would require more money. And he said it would boost the price of a license. He said there are no details on whether the drug tests would be on the first license or on renewals or whether it would just be for 16-year-olds or those who are older.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which takes a dim view of mandatory drug tests as a matter of course, says that -- beyond infringing on privacy -- Clinton's proposal may be toothless since youngsters could skirt detection.

"It won't accomplish anything any more than requiring someone to show up sober for their driver's test," said ACLU lawyer Arthur Spitzer. "It seems pretty obvious to me that this is limited to teenagers because teenagers don't vote."

"It's a knee-jerk response to get tough on the drug issue," said James Copple, president of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. "If you're going to drug test teens, you ought to drug test anyone who wants a driving license."

Besides, Spitzer said, targeting the requirement to teens lets older offenders off the hook. "As far as I can tell, a 25-year-old driver who is not sober is no less dangerous than a teenage driver who is not sober behind the wheel."

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which tracks driving habits and accidents, is not sure the plan will make much difference in teens driving under the influence.

"It might delay some people from getting a license, I suppose -- make it a little more difficult," said Allan Williams, senior vice president for research. "But the problem of drugs is pretty small, except for alcohol."

Williams said Florida and Michigan have instituted policies that have yielded more success than the drug test promises.

The states' graduated license systems restrict conditions under which teens may drive. In Florida 16-year-olds may not drive between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. without a licensed adult, unless they are going to and from work. But it prohibits employers from requiring people under 18 to work those hours.

"Much of the drug use -- alcohol for sure -- is a nighttime phenomenon," Williams said. The graduated license plan, he said, "is something we know works."

Raymond Kubacki, whose company conducts drug tests for 650 corporations and two major metropolitan police forces, said testing can arrest drug usage if it is the right kind of test -- namely, hair analysis, the kind his company offers.

"The real key here is that it must provide a deterrent," said Kubacki, chief executive officer of the Psychemedics Corp. in Cambridge, Mass. "We have technology that's in wide use which looks back at 90 days. If someone abstains for 90 days, they probably aren't a drug user and it really does provide a significant deterrent."

But Psychemedics is one of a few companies that tests hair for drugs, and it isn't cheap. A hair strand test costs about $50.

Critics have other concerns beyond cost, logistics and management.

Copple said Clinton's proposal would send a "confusing message" to young people: Get clean, but only at the time of the driver's test -- "Teens need consistent and persistent messages from multiple sources, including business."

"We think it's a terrible idea," said the ACLU's Spitzer. "It is obviously a political ploy coming two weeks before the election for the president to try to show he's not soft on drugs."

Clinton has assigned White House drug policy director Gen. Barry McCaffrey and Transportation Secretary Federico Pena to put his plan in motion, including possible legislative proposals.