Cloud: You said "I am strongly against them, at least in teenagers."
Ok. That's your belief, and I take it yours is a strong belief. I don't know if it's right or wrong. Ok? Ok.
Here's how to get an A on the paper.
Put the belief on the shelf. Try to make the case that these meds are ok (e.g., safe in animal studies - check out short vs long term) and they help people (e.g., people report symptoms gone, doctors report seeing fewer symptoms, all kind of measures) and they have few side effects.
Yeah administering drugs to kids is not easy - yeah they're developing so yours is a timely question. (I say this just to validate your efforts here - your idea isn't kooky).
I'd be curious to see what you discover.
Start to make the case for the other side. Make copious notes to back up this assertion that the meds are ok.
Now, open fire and shoot down, using what you've read, these assertions if you find, following your analysis, that they are suspect.
Then synthesize your findings into a coherent conclusion and maybe future prospects.
I'd focus too on whether therapy with adolescents is a required follow up in the event that drugs are administered. I would hazard a guess that therapy would be nearly manditory if for no other reason than helping the teen monitor levels and feelings and deal with feelings as they arise.
Good luck.