Posted on 04/29/2002 3:02:28 PM PDT by xsysmgr
On April 9, the U.S. Department of Justice's civil-rights division sued SFX Entertainment Inc. — now called Clear Channel Entertainment — because it prohibits anyone from taking a syringe into a rock concert. Huh? Well, the problem is that this policy makes no exception for insulin-using diabetics. In the Justice Department's view, this violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rock concerts are "public accommodations" under the ADA, insulin-dependent diabetics are "disabled," and letting them take their syringes with them is a "reasonable modification" of Clear Channel's general anti-syringe policy.
Clear Channel says it was surprised by the lawsuit. It says it had explained to the division that diabetics were welcome to bring their insulin kits (including syringe) to the concert, but they had to check the kits at a first-aid station. The division rejected this accommodation as not going far enough, pointing out that it can take 20 minutes or more to get from the mosh pit to the first-aid station, which may prove to be too long in an emergency.
The elderly should not have to choose between eating and their prescription medication — as Al Gore reminded us during the last election campaign — and by the same token the young should not have to choose between a rock concert and their insulin. Right?
Apparently so. In the Justice Department's press release, civil-rights division head Ralph Boyd declared, "Individuals with diabetes are entitled to attend and enjoy community events, like everyone else, without putting their lives at risk."
Boyd added: "[Clear Channel's] policy is unnecessary and reflects outdated fears about individuals with disabilities." This is a silly statement. Surely Clear Channel's fear has nothing to do with the way it views diabetics, and everything to do with the way it views syringes at rock concerts. "The proper disposal of a syringe or needle is a public safety concern," according to Clear Channel.
I would add the obvious point that, even before disposal, syringes can create public-health concerns at rock concerts. They might be used to inject drugs besides insulin. Not only might the syringes brought into the concert by diabetics end up being abused in this way by the diabetic or his friend or someone who one way or another gets hold of his syringe, but soon nondiabetics will pretend to be diabetics and bring in syringes, too. Sure, you could require a certified doctor's note, and no junkie would dream of trying to forge that. Right.
There are two bad guys here. The major villain is Congress, which drafted an incredibly broad and vague statute begging to be abused, and which has turned a blind eye — so to speak — to the problems it has created. On Crossfire, former U.S. Representative and ADA sponsor Tony Coelho said of the law, "It was deliberately written vaguely." Now, as a consequence, everyone has his favorite story of a silly claim made under the ADA. We can add one more to the list, but don't hold your breath waiting for Congress to clean up its mess.
And so, for the foreseeable future, it is up to federal courts and bureaucrats to use good judgment in interpreting a civil-rights law (stop laughing) and strike a reasonable balance between accommodating the disabled and accommodating everyone else. In this instance, the system has not worked. Yes, it would be nice if little Caitlin could see the Backstreet Boys at a live concert without having to worry about going into a diabetic coma, but weighed against this is the real danger that some other kid is going to get jabbed with an infected needle, or overdose, or be assaulted by an addict too high to know what he's doing, and so on and so on.
Clear Channel, which runs these concerts in order to make money and presumably doesn't want to turn away anyone unless it has a good reason, has decided that, all in all, maybe it's not too much to tell little Caitlin that, if she thinks she shouldn't be without her syringe, then maybe she should watch the concert at home on TV. It's not clear why a judge or a bureaucrat ought to be second-guessing that decision. If Caitlin is really unhappy, then maybe daddy's lawyer can sue. But the civil-rights division should not have thrown the weight of the federal government into this dispute.
— Roger Clegg is general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity.
An example: in Dirty Harry, Clint Eastwood carries (I believe) either a .375 or .44 Magnum revolver under his coat as a concealed weapon. Well, I own a number of handguns and, believe me, that much bulk gets in the way if carried as a concealed weapon. But the gun has a great visual effect and is the co-star of the movie. But that is why most detectives carry small handguns what don’t destroy the line of a suit or get in the way of sitting down.
They are extremely popular with drug addicts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.