If someone is chemically dependent, but they abstain from using the chemical, are they addicted to it?

I guess I want to clarify, I take no issue with treating eating disorders and other dangerous, addictive behaviors with the severity they deserve. Dying from anorexia isn't more of a failure of willpower than overdosing, or anything like that, and I'm not trying to gatekeep a psychological disease. I understand that's a fine line.

What I mean to suggest is that chemical dependence is absolutely the biggest factor driving addictive behavior in millions of people, and to say that addiction is just the psychological component feels inaccurate to me, and like it could be used as rhetoric to shift blame back onto users (which is often the discussion) as opposed to the pharmacological forces driving the behavior.

Go to an NA meeting and explain to everyone that, because the structural changes in their neural pathways resemble those found in people with non-chemical dependencies, this means that chemical dependence to an addictive substance is not the primary impetus driving their addictive behavior.

I kind of disagree. Maybe it's semantics, but when addicts choices are driven by chemical dependence, that's a vastly different "choice" than someone who's addicted to, for example ham sandwiches.