Maybe I'm brainwashed, but I would have a hard time believing after all the studies they have done about nicotine being addictive, they suddenly realize, "Oops, never mind."
I would say, emphatically, you (like the rest of us) have been brainwashed. This isn't a "oops, we realized otherwise" scenario. In 1 day of research, you would learn that it is a "cool, our agenda to convince them that smoking/vaping nicotine is highly addictive, and very harmful, is alive and well. And our agenda to control pharma nic and dispense it under our medical model of addiction will bring in lots of revenue for lots of (our) purposes. But remember everyone, we must absolutely stick to the plan that vaping/smoking nicotine is highly addictive and therefore a significant (medical) problem."
I don't see the "oops, never mind" scenario ever playing out unless science changes its game. And while that is a knock against science, there is, in reality the theoretical version of science that we can all find in a dictionary or what we were being taught in grade school, maybe even high school, and then there is the way science works in conjunction with big business and big government. Hence, the reason that scientists can be paid very handsomely for their contributions, even while THEIR contributions are often at odds with other scientists. It is very much like scientists have gotten into the dogma game and a lot like scientists have denominations to which they adhere their core principles to; and the theoretical version of science takes a backseat naivete to anyone who is only coming from that perspective.
Hence, putting our eggs in the basket of science, when overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence shows otherwise, does strike me as foolish. And politically dumb to not realize that we are operating in a reality where brainwashed fools, who refuse to think critically on the issue, are part of (if not main reason) why the status quo of "nicotine is highly addictive" is the predominant meme.
The "nicotine is highly addictive" claim is really easy to challenge. Yet, when challenged, is often met with preposterous claims of "so just stop now if it isn't at all addictive" or "you must be a tobacco shill for there to be a disagreement with the righteous thinking I am conveying."
If every other product / good, was scrutinized like nicotine and tobacco are, society's growth would be severely stunted as we would be allowing molecules of 'danger' to prevent us from any innovation in any field. And yet, when we on the critical thinking side of things bring this up, it does work rhetorically to have people consider the topic beyond the superficial narrative being told, yet also just happens to have the nanny-state minded citizens say to themselves, "wow, we could do this with literally everything and ensure we have an income for our 'research' for a long long long time to come.
)
