I don't think this is an example you should use. Alcoholism is the fault of the person who consumes the alcohol. I would think this is pretty obvious to most conservatives who espouse personal responsibility.
If you disagree, would you say that gun stores are responsible for crime?
30 years ago, you would have had a lot of people agree with you. Now, alcoholism is considered a "disease" - a condition that needs medical treatment, not a moral judgement. Gun ownership would not be a similar example.
I wanted to illustrate, without using drugs, what the libertarian philosophy is about social vices. They believe any social vice is okay as long as nobody uses force. But the reality is that lives are damaged, property is damaged and people die from the abuse and misuse of certain substances and behaviors.
That, in short, is why I am a conservative and not a libertairan or a liberal. I'd rather prevent people from getting addicted rather than making addiction easier - which is what libertarian philosophy would do (though, through their sophistry, they'll deny even that). And that comment on addiction goes for nicotine and alcohol too but we, as a society, have already let those genies out of the bottle and are having to reap the consequences for them (more deaths, higher health care costs, loss of productivity, etc.).
I guess, by your logic, heroin addiction is just a personal weakness - no responsibility goes to the drug smuggler who supplied it?