The poison and antidote gambit is a frequently used trope in zombie and outbreak fictions, where a poison was distributed followed by selling the antidote at lucrative price as a means to generate profit.
Suppose we have an extreme version of the above scheme, where the poison was deliberately being manufactured and distributed, but the antidote is being sold at a fair price. Since unlike the original scheme that there is a high barrier in obtaining the antidote, what will be the moral implications as in the new scheme effectively all potential detrimental outcomes (utilitarianism) (or more generally any potential outcomes that prevent the agent from realising his/her duty or obligation (deontological ethics)) were being blocked?
Background: This is a thought experiment that arises when learning about the interplay between naloxones and heroin overdose in news. A thought then arises on whether drug suppliers can effectively increase revenue while minimising the detrimental impacts of their clients consuming heroin recreationally by basically incorporating naloxones into their heroin package at a fair price (since the profit is guaranteed per capita by the client less likely to die from overdose and revisiting them more often to purchase heroin due to the increasing addiction). If the drug suppliers can somehow optimise this hypothetical scheme to completely block out all detrimental effects of heroin recreational consumption by using naloxones, will recreational heroin become legal because all moral implications are completely eradicated?
Suppose such optimised scheme is still immoral, how can laws be enacted to arrest drug suppliers as under this new scheme, the negative impacts will become less visible due to naloxone incorporation with heroin selling effectively reduces the visible detrimental impacts such as death of drug addicts due to overdose?