I was merely taking issue with their "test" for dependency. They go on to state different rates of continuation based on different methods, but the rates of continuation could have been due to different methods delivering different basic benefits to the users. Without testing the effect of discontinuing use I don't see any way they can determine dependence.
Let's say someone does a test related to orange juice. One control group eats oranges every morning. The other drinks a glass or two.
At the end of the test, they come back 3 weeks later to see who continues to ingest orange juice in the same way they were previously tested.
They find that orange juice drinkers were twice as likely to still be drinking orange juice, verses those eating fresh oranges.
They determine orange juice is more likely to create a dependence.
Do you agree with that methodology or logic?
No I don't agree with that, but I also don't see your example as exactly parallel. But I do get your rationale. I'd just sooner use an example of Red Bull vs. coffee.
I am firmly on the side that says a never-smoker is highly unlikely to get addicted to nicotine by just experiencing nicotine on its own either from patches, gum or vaping. Using tobacco itself, not just one isolated alkaloid from it, is where I find the real risks for dependency. There are a few places I've seen where bodybuilders used nic as a stim during cuts (extreme dieting; calorie restriction) and they reported themselves as never-smokers. This is all just forum posting, but they stopped after their cut and reported no dependency issues after using it for several weeks. They used either gum or patches.