It is frequently the case that when discussing addiction the substances of tobacco and alcohol are grouped together, often along with the activity of gambling, as indicated in this excerpt from psychology today:
'Addiction is a condition that results when a person ingests a substance (alcohol, cocaine, nicotine) or engages in an activity (gambling) that can be pleasurable but the continued use of which becomes compulsive and interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work or relationships, or health.' www.psychologytoday.com/basics/addiction
For alcohol and gambling there is an understanding that consumption/participation in moderation is acceptable; there is literature in the public domain that supports occasional use.
theconversation.com/responsible-gambling-why-occasional-use-is-generally-safe-25493
www.medicaldaily.com/7-health-benefits-drinking-alcohol-247552
However, there is a clear absence of material relating to the acceptance of occasional tobacco use. The clear message when it comes to smoking is one of zero tolerance; that any use at all is harmful, yet given the compelxity of addiction and the understanding that moderation is ok when it comes to other consumables, could it be that smoking in moderation should be more accepted?
Many people do smoke occasionally, have done for many years, yet remain non addicted, as this article outlines:
www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/24/social.smokers/
Given the over emphasis of control in our modern society, are we placing too much focus on eradicating smoking altogether, especially when there are documented social benefits and other addictive substances are viewed more tolerantly, with moderate levels of consumption seen as quite acceptable?
Inconsistent or necessary insistence?
Image source
It is proposed that smoking in moderation should be accepted in the same way as is moderate use of other substances/behaviours