(For my reply to this, I'm going to pretend there is no such animal as ANTZ and that they don't have a political game plan visibly at work in the human society known as the world.)
I do think when people move away from one habit, that they do generally replace it with another, which is perceived by them to be less harmful. I question the less harm thing myself (routinely), but realize there is 'popular beliefs' at work that will confirm for the individual that it is 'in fact' less harmful. I do think replacement theory works wonders, is normal, and generally can lead to sense of liberation from a previous habit that seemed to be a burden toward an individual's self identity. To go from smoker (of decades) to non-smoker is very liberating, and if that is done via replacement therapy, the only person that it truly matters to is the individual who literally self identified as 'smoker' for so long, it was part of who they are.
I've gone cold turkey from smoking 3 times. Two of those times, it was me finding some other substance that would be my go to thing whenever I felt cravings. For me, that was food and I'm feeling confident that popular belief would back me up on idea that eating (lots of) food is better than smoking. Yet, one of those 3 times, was not met with typical replacement therapy. Instead, it was, in my words, a spiritual experience. I needed nothing this planet offers to overcome the addiction. I found it super duper easy to let it go, and this experience of going cold turkey lasted the longest for me (8 years). In my own words, the addiction to smoking was replaced by desire to be with Spirit, which is only about 10,000 times better than smoking. I understand from the perspective of 'popular beliefs' this leaves room for lots of questions others may have or doubts about what I was really up to in moving away from the habit. I generally have no issues discussing this with anyone, and agnostic/atheist types (that I've had discussions with) routinely come off to me as, how you say, clueless.
I say all this because from the non-user/non-smoker perspective, I do think whatever occurred the time where I was able to overcome addiction without needing another substance to fulfill the perceived void, IS the way to always go about cessation. All the other ways are seen as substituting one (bad) habit with plausibly another habit that isn't really quitting and is potentially worse (since scientific knowledge is treated as only way we can possibly know anything about anything).
I think if Surgeon General (or likes of him) were hearing messages consistently along lines of, "vaping got me to stop smoking, and after 1 month of vaping, I stopped using nicotine altogether and/or I stopped vaping as well," that our communal message would be better received.
Yet, filtering everything through cessation as if whatever was being used is inherently problematic, is neglecting a very huge piece of the puzzle, the desire to use. IMO, it is entirely foolish to downplay that desire, and treat it as something that amounts to "bad choice made a long time ago." I could (easily) write another 4 paragraphs on this, elaborating on something I consistently feel is vital to the larger discussion/debate we routinely have, but in this post I'd rather not. Instead, I'd just reiterate that while cessation has its merits and liberation from smoking is a wonderful thing, moderate smoking is, IMO, a very wonderful thing as well. Failure to understand a desire for moderate smoking (or vaping) is IMO, failure to address the real issues with addiction, and likely only treating symptoms. Forever and a day.
