First, that definition really is a change from the classic definition, perhaps in order to further causes such as the one you mentioned, anti-tobacco. I don't argue with the definitions of the components--I believe I posted something similar this weekend.
Second, I have to suspect the motivations of the organizations you quoted, or at least the Addiction organization. It seems to me that they have an economic motivation to change the definition--which they indisputably have done.
The more "addicts", the more patients who are eligible for and come under the care of the members of this organization. For the pain medicine people, certainly the more dangerous the treatment by people outside their societies, the more their societies benefit. I realize that that is an ad hominem argument. But in this case, I believe it is appropriate.
I think, if you disagree, that we will continue to disagree. I will take the conservative position of regarding tradition and classic definitions as the wiser choice.