This situation has been used as a DWI/DUI defense
since the early 1990s - search for “candidiasis”
in https://spaf.cerias.purdue.edu/Yucks/V1/msg00034.html .
It is good to see both a differential test procedure,
and a treatment regime.
Indeed, I believe the laws only say something about "under the influence of alcohol" and specific BAC, with nothing about where the alcohol came from.
Strict liability laws ask only whether the law was broken, and make no reference to the intent to break the law. A classic example here is statutory rape: being lied to about a partner's age is no defense, because the law asks only for the facts of the situation, not the intentions.
Case in point, whistleblowers are tried under the espionage act using strict liability. It doesn't matter why they did it, if it was harmful or beneficial, only that they did it or not.