Its a pretty miserable and quite deadly addictive narcotic. No legitimate medical use, and an unusually hugh incidence of cancer. Its certainly a harm on society. I can't really think of much benefit, most smokers are happy to quit.
But if you look at the US, they have dramatically decreased smoking with education and gentle discouragement.
Maybe also look at the reason why some people get addicted in the first place, it's often due to trauma.
That definition is overly simplified and derives directly from the controlled substances act and similar programs, which refer to many drugs but especially opiates as "narcotics".
I would argue that nicotine is not a controlled substance, so it doesn't fall under this definition anyway.
But, that said, it is totally valid to argue that a definition is wrong, misleading, or incomplete. Has nothing to do with whether I like it or not, but thanks for saying that.
It would be a tautological argument for its addition to the list of controlled substances. Like so, "It's a narcotic because it's a controlled substance and it's a controlled substance because it's a narcotic." Calling it a narcotic is not helpful.
I do wish you would stop taking jabs at me personally.
But if you look at the US, they have dramatically decreased smoking with education and gentle discouragement.
Maybe also look at the reason why some people get addicted in the first place, it's often due to trauma.