Both are not ideal for people in positions of public trust.
I don't want my intelligence officers drunk OR high. Is that too much to ask?
On the job? I agree with you.
Off the job? Do you mind if an inteligence officer who is not on duty let’s say on a fourth of july, bbq-s some burgers with his friends and family and then drinks four beers? Enough to be considered as impaired if they were to drive. But they don’t drive. They don’t babble about secrets. They talk about sports and then they sleep it off. Would you mind that?
And would you mind the same if it were a canabis joint instead of the beers?
I could maybe see this for the highest leadership--the President, 4-star generals, people who are politically or functionally on-call 24/7. But for everyone else, the rule should be, don't show up to work impaired, either drunk or stoned or hungover. (Though I'm not sure how to deal with chronic pain conditions in that case).
If you're mopping the mess hall, you can probably go home and have a six pack if you want. Just not on the job...
You can call them whatever you like, I suppose.
I would certainly accept being "always sober" as a condition of employment if the job was one I really wanted.
I can't find the study, but I seem to remember that alcohol consumption follows the 80/20 rule. A small amount of alcohol consumers consume basically all the alcohol, with non-alcholics consuming very little. If you consume very little, it's probably not a big deal just to go without completely.
The status quo endorses the former and demonizes the latter.