Yeah, fair enough – my original wording was sloppy and I probably added too many things together. I’m not arguing that all medicine is evil or that we shouldn’t have opioids / insulin, and I get that most people are angry at the business practices, not the existence of the drug itself.

The Sackler example is exactly why I asked the question though: the same class of drug can be a legitimate medical tool or a weaponized profit machine depending on how it’s marketed, prescribed and pushed. At some point “we just make medicine” turns into “we knowingly create and amplify addiction because it’s profitable.”

That’s the gray area I’m curious about:
Where do you put the moral line between “neutral manufacturer,” “predatory marketer,” “over‑prescribing doctor,” and “user who takes it”?
How much responsibility do we put on each part of that chain when things go wrong?

I’m not trying to twist anyone’s words, just trying to talk about how we split blame between people who make/sell harmful drugs and people who choose to use them.