Last week, the Center for Individual Freedom published "Putting the Bottom Line Above the Law," which pointed out that recent state and local plans to re-import prescription drugs from Canada are not only bad policy but also blatantly violate federal law. For this latter reason, the article noted that the "fundamental problem" with a Governor or Mayor, "or anyone else, blindly re-importing drugs from abroad is that neither he nor any other elected official is above the law." In other words, state and local elected officials "shouldn’t be leading the charge to break the law; they should be doing everything in their power to uphold it," the article concluded.

But upholding the rule of law — at least when that law is unpopular and may cost a few more of our tax dollars — doesn’t seem to matter much to some of our readers, as we soon learned. Instead, the Center’s application of this steadfast American legal principle was met both quickly and directly with dissention and condescension. One reader accused us of "Keep[ing] America Chemically-Dependent," while another wondered whether "the author of the article [was] invested in pharmaceuticals?"

The attacks alleged that the Center was in bed with and clandestinely controlled by all of the interested parties. To some we were acting as an apologist for the federal Food & Drug Administration, to others we were bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical industry, while to still others these allegations were one and the same since, according to one response, "[t]he truth is that the FDA is merely a puppet of the multinational pharmaceutical industry."

For the record, the Center was influenced by none of the above. Neither the regulators nor the regulated were pulling our editorial strings.

But even if they were, would it have mattered? We were all reminded just this past week that drug re-importation is not a safe and viable option for American consumers. Specifically, a "second series of import blitz examinations" by the FDA and the U.S. Customs Service "found 1,728 unapproved drugs" re-imported to American consumers through the mail and courier facilities in Buffalo, Dallas, Chicago, Seattle, Memphis and Cincinnati. These re-imported prescription medications were not innocuous, and, while they may have saved their intended American recipients some money had they been delivered, they also would have been taken with far greater risks.

The blitz turned up foreign drugs that had been recalled, others that required close physician monitoring to ensure their safety, and yet others that are controlled substances opening the door to serious abuse potential. In other words, these re-imported prescriptions posed a clear and present danger to the health and safety of American consumers, and all were flowing freely without much, if any oversight, at all.

But despite these consistent and continuous reminders about the hazards of drug re-importation — from anywhere, including Canada — the Center’s principle purpose was not to be the ultimate arbiter of foreign drugs and their effectiveness and safety. Rather, as usual, we were concerned with ensuring the integrity and continuity of the American legal fabric. But some readers found fault with even that basic principle.

Seizing upon the name and mission of the Center itself, one reader asked: "Are you for individual freedom, or not?" The question was prompted by the observation that "[t]here are all kinds of laws on the books that restrict personal freedom." At least for this reader, the Center should not be instructing elected officials that their primary and most important duty is to follow the law, like the rest of us are required to do. Rather, if the Center is to be "for individual freedom," according to this reader, we must cast aside the shackles of the rule of law, identify which laws "restrict personal freedom" and then encourage civil disobedience.

Of course, such an argument has its appeal, but who is to decide which laws are illegitimate and should be broken? And who should be able to break them?

According to this reader, it was clear enough that federal laws against drug re-importation serve no useful purpose. We were admonished that, "[i]f you want to tout the rule of law, there are a whole host of other, more significant examples of how [state and local politicians] violate the rule of law." But we would ask what other subjects should we avoid before publishing again?

And that’s how this reader proved the very point we were trying to make in the first place. Not only does the rule of law mean that "no man is above the law" regardless of his economic or political clout, it also means that we are all duty bound to follow the law regardless of our individual objections.

Yes, the Center is "for individual freedom," but, like the Founders, we believe individual freedom is enjoyed most fully and robustly when everyone respects its duly enacted and collectively considered limits. Society cannot be a free-for-all, lest we plunge ourselves back into the Lockean state of nature. Having joined civil society, can’t we all agree that our first duty is to abide by the rules that bind us together? We are all much better off for having the rule of law, which, we might add, allows us to freely and openly debate when a legislative change should be made. Until that time, we reiterate our first principle that "no man is above the law."