It looks like there is indeed quite of bit of overlap between our views. I haven't had much experience with people using the "addiction" excuse, but I recommend you approach the topic using a broader definition, as I do in this blog post (which I think you'll enjoy).

Instead of looking at it from the perspective of, "Is this person just making some excuse so they can get away with irresponsibly continuing the addictive behavior?", look at it from the perspective of, "Does this person get strong urges to do something they know is bad for them, enjoy doing it, but also wish they didn't get those urges?" And then ask if that's a very special kind of "preference" (though I think you already agree now).

Excerpt from the blog (emphasis added):

You all know about how society regards certain products as dangerous, ... because they are addictive. ... Yet I have never been able to get addicted (or near addicted -- I'm not going by the rigorous psychological definition here) to such products. ...

While I have tried cigarettes before, ... beyond the threshold that makes people yearn for a cigarette, I feel no desire whatsoever to smoke. ... Now, here's the kicker: I do get powerful, near-addiction urges to e.g. post on internet forums, eat ice cream/milkshakes (YUM!), play certain video games, and other things I can remember. But EVERY one of those things for which I do get urges ... is completely legal!

And again, I believe the addiction excuse is heavily overused; I just don't think that resolves the akrasia issue.