A Bracha When One Drinks Oil?

On 35B, the gemara notes that the bracha made when one ingests oil is borei pri ha'etz. It then asks -- does one really drink oil -- uzukei mazik leih -- it is damaging; as Rashi puts it, since it damages the body, it is not an eating that requires a bracha. The gemara then goes on to cite a baraita on me'ila, which rules that one who drinks the oil of t'rumah need only replace it and is not obligated to pay the k'nas of a chomesh in constrast to one who uses the oil to anoint himself. As I understand it, this is because anointing was a proper use for oil, while drinking was not.

I am troubled by the connection between the question about drinking oil and the baraita. Once the gemara suggests that no bracha need be made when one drinks oil because it harms the body, what difference does it make as far as a bracha is concerned that drinking is not a proper use for the oil, thus exempting it from the rules of me'ila?

I have a suggestion that I believe resolves the question. When the gemara refers to uzukei mazik leih , perhaps it means not that the oil is the mazik, but rather that the one who has ingested it is a mazik, harming himself by using the oil in a manner in which it is not used. Then, the baraita that is cited follows logically -- one who ingests the oil of t'ruma and thereby does not use it in the fashion that it is normally used, is treated as a mazik and is not guilty of me'ila. See Rashi D"H Mshalem et Hakeren and D"H v'Ein Mshalem Chommesh. Thus, what the gemara is suggesting is that when one ingests harmful food, he is a mazik -- and we can hardly require a mazik to make a bracha on his destructive or harmful act.