Here is a cut and pasted, pretty good description of addiction:
Addiction is a state defined by compulsive engagement in naturally rewarding behavior or compulsive drug use, despite adverse consequences; it can be thought of as a disease or biological process leading to such behaviors.
I think this point has merit in this discussion, but helps if you can tie it directly to OP. Opening post implies an understanding of addiction by noting that there are very heavy users of smoking and then goes onto note how these people are able to stop that addiction in a matter of days (not weeks or longer). And because these heaviest users are able to stop in such short order, sometimes with zero intention to cease smoking, then it is a little amazing (to me) that the cessation rate isn't higher, like closer to 100%.
Denial is simply "my case is different. I am special." "No one could possibly understand my case." Another way to state ones' denial would be : "We are not all alike." This is a CLASSIC statement of addiction denial. MY case is special. MY case is different. We could not POSSIBLY be alike. More comedy.
With these general terms, I am having tough time understanding what wouldn't constitute addiction based on both the stated definition and simplified version of denial. Food is clearly an addiction under these set of terms. Intellect (or intellectualism) would be as well. Breathing would be as well. All these things (and more) may be more than 'mere addictions' but hey, so is vaping. So is smoking.
I do agree that people who do same things (i.e. all people that smoke) likely have similar traits (i.e. may experience wheezing after prolonged or heavy use). This is what I hear you saying, and then hear some detractors who are thinking you are saying (instead) that all smokers (or vapers) are exactly the same in every way conceivable.
Analogs are highly addictive. We all know that. There is the physical addition to nicotine and the tars that stick it into the cells. I believe vaping is highly addictive as well. A test you can self perform is to simply STOP. Don't do it anymore. Quit for a day. Quit for a week. Can you quit at all? Can you quit for 6 months.
Saying you enjoy it and don't want to quit begs the question. The question is, can you?
I have quit smoking, 3 times. Never for less than a year. So the primary question being asked would be answered with a solid yes by me. I think of quitting smoking as not all that challenging. IMO, the "you have to want to quit" applies to staying quit, and not to the first minutes or day of cessation. I do not, at this time, wish to stay quit from smoking, and yet, I've now gone 1.5 days without a cigarette. Not so 'highly addictive' IMO, if I can smoke a pack every 3 weeks and use the product in moderation. If I take vaping out of the picture, I admit that I would likely smoke more, maybe up to 2 PAD's a day. But if I put my history back in that same picture, then I assure you (and mostly myself), I can quit cold turkey any time I choose. The question really is, "why quit?" Cause in case of food, breathing and even intellectualism, I believe lots of people (arguably all people) would exercise a whole lot of deniability to say, "no good reason to quit" and will be proud to be moderate users or even full blown addicts (I'm pretty sure the breathing crowd will say that).
The word addiction carries with it a connotation of 'something bad (dark and dirty) is occurring. Something unwanted.' Yet, when you are enjoying that which is deemed addictive, it is between challenging and impossible to see it as unwanted. Vapers clearly want to keep vaping. Smokers (not overly influenced by ANTZ rhetoric) clearly want to keep smoking. Scientists clearly want to engage in intellectualism. Breathers clearly want to keep breathing. And yet, someday all of these people will one day cease doing this activity. There will not be an exception to this last statement. We could call it a rule, or law type of thing.
This is why total cessation of these types of activities is a very very low number; a low percentage. To me vaping is an addiction that simply replaces what I believe is a much more dangerous addiction. It is a swap to "reduce harm." It is addiction by any other name.
And I would ask what is not an addiction? I believe what may be named will be an addiction by another name, justified as not an addiction by deniability and conniving intellectualism. If you feel otherwise, I am up for entertaining that in this thread. As OP, I think I have that right, and pretty sure I can tie it back to OP. Cause while it is plausible to say that the heaviest of smokers are replacing one addiction for another, it is more plausible IMO, to say that everyone that has ever walked planet earth was addicted to something at all times they were here. I am currently unaware of any exceptions. And within the relative framework that OP is bringing up, it is amazing, to me, that the heaviest users of smoking (deemed one of the most highly addictive items on this planet) are able to stop that activity in short order with very little to no intention for stopping.
For me, what your tangent is (indirectly) doing is making the tangent of moderation a little more pronounced. I am moderate smoker with no intention (currently) to engage in cessation. People that eat food, or breathe, or do other things that match a over simplified designation of 'addiction' are not likely abusing the item, nor causing direct harm to themselves, but that is arguable. The whole "smoking harms" meme is arguable. More arguable if one is smoking in moderation. It would seem that the one who uses in moderation can easily answer yes to the question of "can you quit using this item?" And not have fears, nor exercise blatant denial. Thus the why quit, or why stay quit question, IMO becomes the more reasonable question(s) to be asked.
Not sure what to say next, so I'll just say: your move.