Another case of the political use of medical terms in completely unsupported ways for political goals. There is no medical or scientific support for the use of the word "addiction" in this context. It's a meme that's become more dangerous than the problem it imagines. It's not in the DSM 5 or ICD10 and not because they haven't addressed it in committee. They have, as recently as 2020 and found no support for it. And…
then tell me, why do you need scientific approval before consumption of novel substances, while such other forms of consumption (that access the brain's networks through other modalities than ingestion) are by default "ok"? or are behavioural interventions must be considered as strictly less effective and not require any approval, unless used in a medical setting?
and that brings to another question - if it's only the medical setting that decides whether a substance should be considered for approval for consumption (although there's also zero proof that the applications in question thave no psychoactive effects - its rests entirely on your personal feelings), are all other settings simply out of bounds for legal (and, most importantly, moral) considerations?
And the way you objectivize such items like "intrinsic value" (completely individual, i.e., case-by-case domain, obviously involved in choice of substance of addiction in all cases of addiction), for me, renders your arguments completely awry. And comparison with conversion therapy is just plain edgy and intentful misrepresentation for the sake of ackchyually.
In my view, this is a perfect case for "there's legitimate doubts about the safety of this technology, so let's ban this until it's completely proven to be safe to consume".