A large fraction of western middle class youth goes through a phase of rebellious experimentation with recreational drug use almost every one of them eventually grows or of it, either when they settle into jobs or after a long phase of stable, functional use that slowly becomes more sporadical than regular.

Sure, if you count in as "died from addiction" everybody who was essentially taken by old age, just earlier than what might have happened with a healthier lifestyle, then the majority turns again. But those numbers never really make sense, except for constructing alarmism. Everybody who merely "lost years" (as opposed to something closer to the cliche of overdosing on a public toilet) would have also lost years to burgers, pollution, sedentiarism and stress. Which one was the killer?

The title is not misleading at all. The article does not say anything that disagrees with the title.

Also it cites several studies in support of its thesis.

You would really have to back up that argument with some kind of evidence.