Interjecting because this is kind of an easier comment with which to make it, but it does apply to the conversation generally: I think my willingness for this to be the case would probably be dependent on whether or not it means we have to pay more or less, both at a personal level, and a societal level. i.e. does this discourage reckless behavior enough for it to offset the potential economic drain of, say, determining liability?

The same can be asked of vaping, but with different caveats. Does it work out that it costs less over time for us to regulate vapes, regulate flavors, etc. , compared to if we chose not to regulate them, or chose to regulate them more liberally? It might be somewhat difficult to totally regulate against consumer purchase and mixing of chemical flavoring agents, and such regulation might also increase adverse health outcomes, as it would've been, generally, easier to enforce safety standards on the supply side. Increased taxes might lead to increased costs foisted onto the consumer which, again, might lead to a larger unregulated market developing, which can cause other problems.

I'm not saying regulation shouldn't be done, I think it's broadly a good thing, but I think it's also usually the case with these sorts of things that everyone tends to form opinions, and legislate, based on mixtures of hip shooting public sentiment and whatever their "common sense" tells them, rather than creating regulations around whatever would result in the most net benefit, or, the least net negative. Most of all, people tend to shoot first with regulation, and then never even ask questions later about what the effects were, but I guess that's all getting off a little bit into the weeds on the flaws of overly brittle political systems.