I would say point on current tangent is that it is refutable.
I think a very important point, brought up in your question, and responded to with a question is:
Are people addicted to it (or things in general) and/or are substances addictive?
I asked in another
thread (2 days ago) what substances wouldn't be addictive? As even I believe some substances are not inherently addictive, then that question is refutable by pointing out what those substances are. Yet, given the logic that says nicotine is inherently addictive, which is based on the idea that people do thus and so with regards to their use of nicotine, then I still am left to wonder if we could convince ourselves that arguably everything we use is addictive. May not be for you, but if it is for anyone, then it would follow that possibly all things are addictive. I mean, we know work/money can be addictive. We know food can be. I observe most people appear addicted to use of shelter. So, all the basics are (or can be). I think if we run down the list, we would find that all things can be. Even while some people, perhaps a majority, are clearly not addicted.
So, the addiction to nicotine becomes rather pointless to assert it in a way that says nicotine is addictive. Cause arguably all things are addictive. And I say arguably, because I believe that is refutable.
And because more people don't use (have addiction to) nicotine than do, then in general, it is easy to conclude it is not addictive (on the whole). Furthermore, in non users of nicotine, when they breathe in second hand smoke, wouldn't that be prime opportunity to gain an addiction if nicotine is inherently addictive? Wouldn't it be more likely that our society would secretly want second hand smoke around them as much as possible if nicotine were truly addictive? You know, cause they'd be inhaling it and after just a few breaths of this 'highly addictive substances' they could despise the smoke aspect of it, but because addiction generally signifies lack of control, they'd have no control over their desire to be around 2nd hand smoke. They'd crave it. They'd want people to smoke around them as much as possible to get their nicotine fix.
Oh, but wait, we don't live in that shared reality. People inhaling nicotine from 2nd hand smoke aren't telling us they crave that, even while nicotine is going into their bloodstream. So, hmmm, maybe it isn't inherently addictive.
Perhaps it is closer to reality that person has got to have a preference for it, find enjoyment with it, a desire to reinforce that enjoyment factor, and THAT serves as foundation for this concept of addiction that we still seem entirely unclear on even while we toss the concept around like we know exactly, precisely what we are talking about, yet can't readily respond to a question as simple as, "aren't all things inherently addictive?"
It is even too sad to even laugh at.
It's been all downhill since then.
