The idea that the 'choice' to no longer be a drug addict is exactly the same as the 'choice' to not even start taking drugs in the first place (or the 'choice' to go and make a sandwich) is absurd on its face.
It's depressing how so few people recognize that at a certain point 'choice' and rational decison making becomes almost meaningless, because the numerous seemingly innocent decisions that were made originally only look like a huge mistake with hindsight.
Once an individuals mind has reached a certain point, blaming them for not making the same decisions that a perfectly rational individual should make is beyond idiotic, particularly as supposedly rational individuals without the same excuse make terrible decisions every single day.
It's a failure to understand causation and the fact that several seemingly innocent and reasonable decisions can lead to terrible consequences, including much worse decisions. The later, severely impaired decision making is a consequence of the original, fairly innocent decision making.
And that's the conundrum, because few people would believe that the original decisions were terribly blameworthy, yet they are quite prepared to heap blame on someone for the later decisions, even though it is quite clear that at that point the individual is no longer functioning as a rational human being.
Quite what the blame game achieves I have no idea, but it obviously makes some people feel superior, even if it's the functional equivalent of winning a 100m sprint against a two month old baby.