Words Matter When Quitting Nicotine – Kill The Can Podcast Episode 58

Episode 58 – Words Matter When Quitting Nicotine

The Kill The Can Podcast
Recorded: March 4th, 2026

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Kill The Can Podcast. I hope you are well.

It hasn’t been too terribly long since the last episode, but it has been longer than I would have hoped. I recorded the previous episode on January 30th, and as I’m sitting here today it’s March 4th. So it’s been about four weeks. Not quite as frequent as I’d like, but here we are.

I’ve got a couple things I wanted to talk about tonight, and I’m not entirely sure how this is going to come together, but I think you’ll understand as I get into it.

I recently had a conversation on social media on one of the platforms, and the topic of the word addict came up. Specifically, I used the word “addict” and the phrase “addict speak.”

This particular user took issue with my choice of words, and honestly it caught me off guard.

I’ve always been open and honest about my addiction to nicotine. I don’t think the word addiction is a dirty word or a negative word. It’s simply accurate.

This person apparently disagreed.

I’m not going to say their name or the platform this happened on because the identity really isn’t important. What matters is the conversation itself.

For some context, every day I go back through the Kill The Can website and review posts that were published on that day in previous years.

For example, on March 4th there were several posts from different years: a podcast episode from 2025, a review of nicotine pouches from 2021, an Ask the Expert chat from 2020, and even some older posts going back to 2016.

One of the things I reposted that day was an article from 2015 titled “Are e-cigarettes becoming cool?”

When I reshared it, I said: “Article from 2015. Spoiler alert: the answer is no.”

This person responded by saying that the phrase “smoking e-cigarettes” was Orwellian doublespeak and that the correct term was vaping. He said the phrase was used to demonize safer alternatives to cigarettes.

I replied that the article was from 2015, which is why the language was what it was, but regardless of terminology, these products still aren’t cool.

That’s when the conversation started to shift.

He said he didn’t care what was cool. What he cared about was helping people quit smoking and preventing smoking-related deaths.

For context, this person claims to be a PhD working in the harm-reduction space and is a strong advocate for vaping as a smoking cessation tool. We’ve had conversations before about my stance that quitting nicotine should mean becoming 100% nicotine free.

Typically those conversations start friendly enough, but they always circle back to the same disagreement.

He believes many people cannot quit smoking without vaping.

I believe anyone can quit nicotine if they truly want to.

So when he said people needed tools like patches, gum, or vaping, I responded that quitting doesn’t require tools — it requires dedication and will.

That’s when I used the phrase “addict speak.”

He replied with statistics claiming that only about 5% of smokers quit successfully cold turkey, and that using nicotine replacement therapies only increases success rates slightly.

This is where I really started to take exception.

Because the implication is that people can’t quit nicotine without these aids.

And I just don’t believe that.

At Kill The Can we have thousands of examples of people who quit nicotine completely, without patches, gum, or vaping.

So I responded that suggesting people can’t quit without products is addict speak, and that anyone can quit nicotine if they truly want to.

Then the conversation took a turn I didn’t expect.

He said the American Psychiatric Association dropped words like addict and addiction in 2013 because those terms are stigmatizing.

That stunned me.

I responded that this idea seemed ridiculous to me and that addiction is simply an accurate description of what nicotine does.

But he doubled down.

He argued that calling someone an addict is as offensive and stigmatizing as using a racial slur.

At that point I told him we were done with the conversation because comparing the word addict to racial slurs is absurd.

But he continued explaining that the preferred terminology now is “people who use drugs” or “substance use disorder.”

He also argued that nicotine itself isn’t addictive under modern definitions.

His argument was that addiction requires both dependence and significant harm. Since nicotine supposedly doesn’t cause significant harm on its own, he claimed it should only be considered dependence forming — not addictive.

That absolutely blew my mind.

He even cited CDC material saying nicotine itself does not cause cancer or heart disease.

Now to be clear, I never claimed nicotine is as harmful as cigarettes. But the idea that nicotine isn’t addictive is something I simply cannot wrap my mind around.

Eventually I asked him a simple question: what was his personal experience with nicotine use?

How long had he smoked, dipped, vaped, or used nicotine?

Instead of answering, he said he was tired of the conversation and asked me to leave him alone.

I agreed and told him he wouldn’t hear from me again.

And I’ve stuck to that.

But the conversation stuck with me.

I just cannot understand the mental gymnastics required to argue that nicotine isn’t addictive.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m behind on the latest terminology or literature.

But I’ve always been comfortable saying I’m a nicotine addict.

I was addicted to nicotine.

And I don’t feel shame or stigma in acknowledging that.

In fact, recognizing addiction is what helped me quit.

So I’d love to hear from you.

Am I wrong?

Is the word addict stigmatizing?

Or is it simply the truth?

And am I wrong in believing that anyone can quit nicotine if they truly want to?

I really don’t think I am.

But I’d love to hear your thoughts.

That’s all I’ve got tonight. I’m still kind of shaking my head over the whole thing.

Cheers, quitters.