Definition of addiction, per Wikipedia: "
Addiction is a state characterized by compulsive engagement in rewarding stimuli,
despite adverse consequences"
Emphasis mine. Words like "addiction" have very specific meanings. Not just what you or anyone else wants the word to mean. There are no significant adverse consequences from ingesting nicotine in the levels we vape.
I think the definition is good. A bit clinical for my tastes, but it works.
Thing is, who defines "adverse consequences?" I get what dictionary says as definition for "adverse" but this is where the clinical doesn't really address reality.
With smoking (cigarettes), it is partially to mostly defined by ANTZ rhetoric. Like people who say things like, "if you can't make it through the grocery story without having a smoke, then you have problems." This implies that if I go to grocery store 10 times, and 9 of those times I don't smoke (or vape), but one of those times I do, then I have a problem. For argument sake, I'm just choosing one of about 50 examples where ANTZ frame the issue in way that pretty much amounts to, any recreational use of this means "you have a problem."
Adverse consequences routinely, in the real world, seem dependent on whether person using (whatever) is taking significant time away from regular relationships. With alcoholism, this becomes so obvious, it is arguably the best / most popular addictive behavior to help make this point clearly. But if person that is alcoholic is in generally decent health, able to work daily and do their job well, then the significant other in their life could be that which is defining all adverse conditions.
With nicotine, it would seem very challenging to see how it could have adverse consequences, that are significant. Yet, not impossible to see how it could have any plausible adverse consequences. IMO, there are exactly zero substances on the planet that have no adverse consequences. If going to be real about the adverse consequences part, then that needs to be emphasized, otherwise, it really does seem to come down to people that are anti-whatever is perceived to be the issue, and then pulling out the "adverse consequences" card. Like if I were anti-science, and heard about a person who stayed late at work routinely on latest scientific project, affecting relationship with a significant other, that would be adverse consequence, and thus "practicing science" could be painted, rather easily, as a (bad) addiction.
I will note two things though. Adverse consequences are generally fairly easy to identify for an addicted person, and self identifying makes most sense, which is how organization like AA tends to handle things. Having someone else identify adverse consequences might be prudent in some cases, but unlikely helpful to person experiencing usage, as they aren't likely to see it through same prism, of "problem." As in smoking/vaping in a grocery story is not inherently a problem.
Second thing is that in all my encounters with "all things addictions," it seems that nic users do have unique perspective due primarily to lack of significant adverse consequences. I really do think it is that tame, and because it is, it is easier for nic users to probe the issues without being overly defensive, yet because of ANTZ stigmatization of nic using, I can relate to the sense of defensiveness that exists. Like if people who were readers were labeled as "shameful" and "hopeless addicts" and 90% of society bought into that worldview, I'd understand if they came off as defensive in explaining their ongoing desire to continue reading (using). I guess what I'm saying is nic users are the type of "addicts" that I find easiest to relate to, as they are generally not shy about accepting the idea of "yeah, I may be addicted. Let's talk about that."
