Ethics of con artists

[brewer]

Yes. Do a quick google 'juul product misrepresentation' and read.

OK, you are referring to false advertising that claims the product poses to health consequences and is less addictive than cigarettes.  The first part is supported by a number of studies that show it is far safer than tobacco smoking.  It is, of course, addictive so the claim that it is not is false.  But I feel that this product is within the boundaries for a legitimate product and doesn't rise to the level of a con.  If you dig deep enough, you'll find that the marketing for almost all products have some distortions.  So there isn't a clear fine line to use for judgement.

Same argument could be made for Mylan and Purdue and most of the products in the OP. So we got ethics on a sliding scale, and apparently the potential to do harm also.

Did you skip over the marketing to the under age?