The cigarette lobbyist is making a specious argument comparing cigarettes to lettuce in order to exonerate cigarettes, despite that noone smokes lettuce, lettuce is not addictive, and it's just totally different altogether.
Similarly, your comment is trying to exonerate Facebook by comparing addictive Facebook use to... regular, "addictive" participation in healthy, fun physical activities? Despite the fact that it is a completely different situation: Facebook deliberately tries to be addictive, there are numerous studies about the negative effects of excess Facebook use, there are no physical health benefits, etc.
So I was just saying that your argument is as specious and nonsequitur as the tobacco lobbyist.