Back during one of the big buyouts of ca. 1980, an executive of KKR explained why it was buying some cigarette company: You make it for a dime, you sell it for a dollar, and people are addicted to it.
So I guess I had a pretty good hold on what the population of smokers was, and so I know most struggled to quit.
As for the other drugs, yeah, I'm open to thinking otherwise. I have lots of friends who recreationally use cocaine, MDMA, LSD, mushrooms, and whatever else. Personally I've tried all of those and really just use shrooms now occasionally¹. No particular addictions there among my group of friends, so I'm open to your school of thought there.
¹ Cocaine is boring. MDMA is great. LSD is cool. Shrooms has massive therapeutic effects for me. I can skip my Adderall for two weeks after a trip. I feel so motivated to work and find it trivial to focus.
Lots and lots of living people have smoked at some point. However, many (most?) of those people quit smoking at some point.
So, the remaining people are the people that are most addicted, which gives us the impression that tobacco is highly addictive for everyone.
Edit: the CDC says that 62% of people who have ever smoked have quit.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/cess...
It could be selection bias. Maybe I hang out with other people with addiction potential because of who I am. But it's definitely not survival bias (which is sort of what the rest of your comment talks about). The thing that makes it unlikely and the article's premise unlikely is that the weight of evidence is on this stuff being addictive.
But, you know, I'm a huge fan of the therapeutic effects of many scheduled drugs, so I'm open to the idea that addiction works differently from currently understood.