You certainly should be liable if your product is highly dangerous and addictive, and you've purposefully created an environment that incentivizes over proscrib

You certainly should be liable if your product is highly dangerous and addictive, and you've purposefully created an environment that incentivizes over proscribing of your dangerous addictive product. If you actively encourage the misuse, you are the problem. You could make similar arguments against Wells Fargo account fraud or Boeing 737 MAX. Both involve executives creating environments that resulted in abuse or "misuse" by employees or customers. Did these policies cause harm? Were there safeguards in place to reduce abuse/misuse, or were those ignored because they would have stopped the gravy train?