If we're talking about someone who obviously cannot take care of himself then I'd agree, but in that case the law assigns responsibility to some legal guardian.

If we're talking about someone who obviously cannot take care of himself then I'd agree, but in that case the law assigns responsibility to some legal guardian. For the rest, note that getting drunk will also mean you'll have less control over your own thoughts, decisions, etc., but this shouldn't affect the responsibility we assign to any consequences of that. I'm arguing against the idea that a philosophical argument for the complete non-existence of free will should affect our social construction of responsibility. Similarly, even if there is a biological or psychological cause to a crime, if someone cooks up some elaborate psychopathic plan, the law should assign responsibility regardless.