Doubters about the need for government regulation regarding drug distribution need look no further than the statement from the associate general counsel at Cardinal Health, one of the country's biggest drug distribution companies ("Opioid exec denies obligation to public," July 25). When asked whether her company aims to "ensure that it does what it can to prevent the public from harm," she answered, "I don't know that Cardinal owes a duty to the public regarding that."

There is nothing evil about the person or the company behind this statement, which is a refreshingly candid reflection of the fact that the free-enterprise ideal of capitalism provides absolutely no motivation to serve the public good or constraint against doing harm. Profit is the sole currency of our economy. Any protection of our bodies, our health, our privacy, our identities, or our environment must come from an entity that puts people first: our government.

The Cardinal Health counsel confirmed that the company must conform to "the law, the statute, regulations and guidance." As the current administration continues to shed one regulation after another in a flurry of indulgence to big business, it abdicates its responsibility to safeguard the citizens it supposedly serves and further dissolves the now-threadbare fabric separating us from many different kinds of disaster.

Jeff Naylor, Minneapolis
MUELLER'S TESTIMONY

Same hearing, opposite conclusions

I marvel that a July 26 letter writer from Sleepy Eye, Minn., could look behind Oz's curtain and see a sad, halting, confused Robert Mueller, the great Democratic hope, answering questions about a biased report, written by a biased team on an investigation into election interference that should never have happened. And I, a guy from Minneapolis, see an investigation conducted by a well-respected prosecutor and long-standing public servant, issuing dire warnings and factual evidence that adversaries are influencing our elections, an investigation that has at the very least resulted in a number of indictments and felony convictions for some of the president's closest advisers and exposed the president's active resistance to leading us against this interference. How can we be so far apart?

The president gave us that answer before he was ever elected: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters."

We all must keep taking a hard look behind that curtain, because it's not Mueller who's back there.

Jeffrey Wells, Minneapolis
• • •

By declaring, in reference to the Mueller report, that "thankfully this sad chapter in U.S. history is over," a July 26 letter writer misses an essential point. The integrity of our country's elections (perhaps local as well as national) is under attack by Russia and potentially other foreign powers. When taking office, U.S. senators and representatives swear to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Constitution, in turn, establishes that members of the House and Senate are to be chosen by the people of the states.

By not allowing a vote on election security bills to come before the Senate, I believe Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is failing to live up to his oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, especially foreign ones. Republicans and others who want to just put the Mueller report behind us, claiming "it's over," are ignoring a duty to hear and act upon what Mueller said. Notably, compared with the billions and billions of dollars we spend on military hardware, the House proposal to provide hundreds of millions to the states to shore up our defenses and employ backup paper ballots in elections is quite modest and urgently deserves Senate passage. It is likely that the attack on America is just beginning. We dare not proceed poorly armed.

Bill Kaemmerer, Edina
• • •

I did not learn any of the following from Mueller's congressional testimony: that the Russians tried to influence our election in favor of a particular candidate, that the president's campaign welcomed interference and expected to gain from it, that high-ranking members of the candidate's campaign staff had numerous contacts with Russian operatives throughout the campaign, that the current occupant of the White House tried on multiple occasions to obstruct an investigation into this attack on our election, and that the findings of the investigation were not sufficient to exonerate President Donald Trump from wrongdoing.

These facts have been evident ever since the release of the Mueller report.

What I did learn: that the Republican Party lives comfortably with this knowledge and is content to sit passively while the foundations of our democracy are eroded by a corrosive administration, and that the Republican members of the Judiciary and Intelligence committees have no loyalty to the interests of the United States.

What I have concluded after the testimony: Members of the Republican Party who embrace Trump demonstrate again and again and again that they are not fit to govern at any level. Democrats have to unite to vote Republicans, from the White House on down, out of office. It is not just about the White House. It is about the Senate, the House and state legislatures.

Megan Morrissey, Minneapolis
POLYMET MINE

Lawmaker warnings about risks are fact, not 'misleading and false'

In light of Minnesota House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt's accusation that efforts to suspend the PolyMet mine permits are "spreading misleading and false information," he should read a letter to Gov. Tim Walz signed by me and 17 other lawmakers and explain what is false and misleading ("Legislators want PolyMet permits halted," July 25).

Fact: A mine tailings (waste rock) dam collapsed in Brazil earlier this year, killing 250 people. Now, Brazil is in the process of decommissioning mining dams similar to the one that Minnesota is permitting PolyMet to use.

Fact: A mining engineer hired by the Department of Natural Resources to consult on the PolyMet financial assurance requirements described the PolyMet dam design as a " 'Hail Mary' type of concept" that "will eventually fail." The consultant said the plan gives him "severe indigestion because a lake on top of a pile of sand is inherently unstable and irresponsible. The dam embankments are a stair-step arrangement that is inherently geomorphically unstable."

Could Rep. Daudt tell us what is misleading or false about those statements?

In Brazil, not only are people not putting in new dams like this, but they are removing existing dams. It is pure folly for Minnesota to permit such a dangerous dam here. I believe these facts point to flawed permits that need to be suspended.

John Marty, St. Paul

The writer is a Democratic state senator.

DEMOCRATIC DEBATES

Is a little decorum too much to ask?

Democratic 2020 candidates: Please don't embarrass your constituents at the upcoming debates. I implore you to rise above the tone set by the guy in the White House. Treat each other with respect. Don't talk (or yell) over one another. Be serious, but not angry. Show the world your integrity, intelligence and inclination toward kindness. Give us a reason to support you, not just vote against the bully in office.

Make us proud.

I beg you.

Ann Sundberg, Edina

Want to see your thoughts here? Submit a letter to the editor.