JamesfrmEngland, I think a more accurate analogy would be to say that if you are no longer drinking, you are no longer a drinker, but to those of us who know we can't drink just one, and there are many of us who have proved this to ourselves and others, we ARE alcoholics, because somewhere at sometime this was called and labeled as Alcoholism.
I think there simply is not a label for people who no longer smoke, but know that if they have ONE, they can't stop, and there of course are many of those. They just don't potentially do harm to others by losing control of all their senses when they smoke. Smoking would impair driving like drinking coffee. But I am quite certain that people who worked their ass off to quit smoking, and know by experience that smoking one will be another non-stop affair, they probably would accept a label. But many also wouldn't just like many alcoholics won't call themselves that because they think is sounds bad or is demeaning.
Personally it does not bother me to say I am an alcoholic, because by definition of the term that is what I am. But it DOES bother many, and those elect to come up with some other term or excuse for not drinking, like "I don't feel well" or "I am on meds and can't mix the two right now" or whatever they want to come up with so that they look better and feel better about the problem that they have.
To each their own. I just think you missed it on your analogy is all.
I would never judge a process one uses to NOT drink though, as I have said before in this forum. Whatever a person does to not drink, who has a problem drinking and is an alcoholic, be it AA or some other group, or no group, or meditation, or standing on their head, who cares, they are doing what works for them and I am happy for them. We all find a way, or we don't.