Fatal self-harm, more commonly referred to as suicide, is a serious public health problem affecting individuals and communities worldwide. Some products and services, such as paracetamol, bridges, and railways, are recognised as requiring regulatory or design interventions to prevent suicide. However, others with well-established associations with suicide, including alcohol, gambling products, pesticides, opioids and firearms, are often framed as safe when used appropriately, even in the absence of effective regulation. In such cases, responsibility for harm is shifted onto individuals rather than directed towards harmful products and the industries that produce them. This article aims to examine this divergence, asking why certain products are problematised while others with clear links to suicide are heavily promoted and widely accessible. It examines the structural and commercial factors that sustain these inconsistencies. In so doing, we argue that such diverging approaches to harmful products deserve more effective scrutiny and call for the consistent application of a prevention lens across all products linked to self-harm and fatal outcomes. Such an approach is essential to advancing global suicide prevention efforts.