it's not true. i was a heavy smoker and quit and didn't replace it. it was tough. the temptation for a smoke took like 5 to 10 years to disappear.
i never drank much alcohol, but decided to quit that too, after i realized i hadn't had a drink in several months and wanted to see where it's going.
i know several others who quit one thing or another and didn't replace it. replacing can be a coping mechanism though. if you replace with something that's more easy to quit, it's a good way out.
(Said with heavy sarcasm and love from someone with ADHD who has endured being told to "Why don't you just focus" countless times - also, addiction is a common comorbidity with ADHD, woo)
Cigarettes are a good example of an addictive substance, it messes with your brain chemistry after a while making it harder to quit. That's an addiction, it works that way for pretty much everyone. I used to smoke too, the difference between me and an addict is I could have one cigarette today and never have one again easily, whereas an addict would not be able to stop at one and would have to work a long time to quit again if they ever even could.
I hope some day you can gather up enough empathy to get that. But I doubt that too given your reply above.
I’m not sure if the distinction is what you think it is?
I think I could have a cigarette right now and then not have another. But at the peak of my smoking I think I would have to have another. I think normal people can become addicts if they become dependent on a substance, and I think addicts can cease to be so, though it is very difficult, more so for some substances than others. Unless I’m misunderstanding you
You're definitely splitting hairs with the definition here. You might be correct, but there's also a good chance that OP didn't use the terminology correctly either and that the answer given is exactly what they are asking about.