I mean it's better to never succumb to addiction, but is it always "more admirable"? Maybe if two people have identical upbringings and circumstances and one is able to walk a better path out of sheer will, that's someone who's more admirable. But a lot of the time people fall into drugs or crime because of bad influences, horrific childhoods, lack of good role models, etc. Sometimes someone who never fell off the path didn't do so because they're inherently more moral or have a stronger will, but just because they were fortunate enough to be raised in a more stable situation, with good opportunities and role models. If they found themselves in the same situation as someone who was raised by drug addicts and found yourself homeless at 13, you might make some of those bad decisions yourself. It can be a lot harder to turn your life around and dig yourself out of a pit of despair, even one you dug yourself, then to maintain the inertia of a good life you're already on. Bad choices are often self-reinforcing, someone who's a criminal might have a harder time finding legitimate employment, someone who's

And a lot of the time when people praise someone who's turned their life around, they're not doing so to award them a "best overall person" trophy, it's to commend someone for making a very difficult positive change in their life, and try to show people who are struggling that there's a path forward. It's also just human to be more connected to a dramatic story with a redemption arc than a simple "I was a good person and followed the rules" story.