When reading this comment, I am glad prohibitionists didn't have these scientific tools a century ago. Creepy.

What’s the difference between malaria and tobacco use, considering nicotine is highly addictive? If substance abuse is a disease, why is it “wrong” to attack it or it’s vectors in the same way as a biological disease?

Because the carriers are not mosquitoes? "If X is a disease, why is it 'wrong' to attack it or it's vectors in the same way as a biological disease?" Surely you can see what a nonsensical statement that is for many values of X be it substance abuse, gambling, etc.

I don’t. If we’re not going to outlaw substances that have extremely limited therapeutical uses in their current form while allowing corporations to profit by causing great harm to millions of people, you explore other avenues to fix the problem.

I’d offer a vaccine for addiction if one existed, but until that time, you hack around the lack of political will.

That sounds like a really bad idea. Also, you can make synthetic nicotine. So eliminating tobacco wouldn't help.

Nicotine, while highly addictive, would still cause far less damage to its users if consumed through a patch, gum or e-cigarette. I’m disrupting a suboptimal consumption method.

Indeed. The last time that I quit tobacco, I kept chewing nicotine gum for several months. To get the attention-focusing effect. But I really don't like chewing gum, and so gave it up. And modafinil is better, anyway.

Congratulations on quitting!

Hey, thanks :) I went 20 years using, 10 years off, one year using, and now over 10 years off. It's a damn hard drug to kick.