> I actually tend toward the idea that people that manufacture and sell potentially harmful, but inanimate things are in no way responsible for their final use

> I actually tend toward the idea that people that manufacture and sell potentially harmful, but inanimate things are in no way responsible for their final use (or misuse). They're not forcing anyone to take these drugs, nor is the prescriber, nor is the pharmacist, nor is the truck driver who drove it to the corner store. This might be admissible in the case of the sacklers if all they did was create the drug and make it available, but they did much more than that: they marketed opiates heavily, they aggressively downplayed the negative affects, and they incentivized doctors to prescribe (which of course apportions some of the blame to the doctors as well). And even the prescribing doctors share in the blame through their deliberate actions: first, when a doctor prescribes opiates, they’re not prescribing some other treatment, but you (the patient) still have the issue, so you can’t really not take the opiates, ie forego treatment, especially since you’re also out the money and using up your insurance (if you even have that!); second, not behaving in line with your doctor’s wishes can have its own set of consequences, ranging from ticking your doctor off (which is bad, since you need them to help you with your condition, and finding new doctors takes time and money, and you’re ill all the while) to getting sent to the psychiatrist. So much to say, I think this attitude is incorrect in the case of the Sacklers, as it doesn’t comport with the evidence, and in the general case it’s naive.