You're throwing out a lot of emotionally charged anecdotes and national statistics, but none of them actually support the point you think they do. You've essentially argued that because a large percentage of Americans have some form of substance use issue, that explains why the food industry is bad now. You seem to be using correlation as a moral cudgel, despite your claim that you think you aren't arguing from moral viewpoint.
You worked in rehab, so your sample is literally skewed toward people who needed treatment. That didn't give you a representative labor market view, it gave you a front-row seat to the worst cases. Fast food was never staffed by master chefs. It was always high school kids, burnouts, old people looking for things to fill out their day, etc. It didn't suddenly become bad because workers changed. It became bad because corporations, outsourced prep, centralized ingredients, reduced on-site cooking, cut training, standardized menus, etc. You can swap out every employee in a McDonald's tomorrow for Michelin-trained cooks and it will still be Sysco patties, frozen buns, and pre-mixed sauce. The supply chain dictates the ceiling.
But as far as, "It is a choice to use Sysco."? You keep ignoring the fact that the "choice" to use them is determined by margin pressure, logistics scale, shareholder expectations and distribution monopolization. When the entire industry is financially incentivized to buy from the same two suppliers, calling it a "choice" is about as meaningful as saying Americans are "free" to not use the internet.
A technically available option is not the same thing as a viable one.