"If our process hasn't worked for you, you didn't want it to work enough" is unfalsifiable and can be used to defend any sort of quackery. Indeed, there's no way to generate a counterexample -- of someone who had "willingness to change" but for whom the drug court didn't work -- because the defender of the drug court can always claim that they "didn't want to change enough".

Pseudoscience of this sort has no role in anything as fraught and complex as drug use/addiction.

Notably, it is routinely used to defend 12-step programs. The standard set of slogans includes the phrase "it works if you work it" (which I've more recently seen applied to cognitive-behavioral therapy).

It replaces a bigger problem with a smaller problem.

Can better be done? Yes.

We could research this stuff and then listen to the research. Use the methods with the best general outcome for the patient, based on medical proceedings. And perhaps use these things with iffy outcomes - AA, for example - as add-ons or options for patients to choose from, with a medical doctor's blessing.