Why are the jobs you could do perfectly well while intoxicated always the ones worried so much about it?

I was just completing an online questionnaire for a crappy job with an inventory service when I was confronted with a rather complicated question concerning morality and social responsibility. Right after blindsiding me with counting exercises (How many circles are pictured below?) and complex math (If a case contains four boxes and there are eight cases, how many boxes are there?), they really jumped into quite the ethical debate with the following:

Which of the following statements would you most agree with:

A. An employee who abuses illegal drugs should be dealt with to the strictest letter of the law.
B. An employee who abuses illegal drugs should only be disciplined if it negatively affects their job performance.
C. Whether a person chooses to use drugs is their own choice and they should be free to do so.

Obviously, the "correct" answer (if you want a job) is A, right? Of course it is, until you get to option D:

D. Drug abuse negatively affects both the individual as well as society as a whole and it is an illness that needs to be treated clinically.

Holy curveballs! Am I supposed to divine the politics of this particular company before answering this questionnaire? The other questions got no more controversial than "How often do you miss work due to illness?" and now we're going to debate the argument at the core of the War on Drugs?

Jesus Harold Christ.

I'm still thinking the answer they were looking for here was A, but I went with D to keep my conscience clear. Sure, I lied on the rest of them ("How hard would your coworkers say you work?" B. Harder than most), but I had to play this one straight.

For that $8 an hour they're offering, I'll be more than happy to debate the usefulness of the War on Drugs.