If they are drunk to the point of being unable to distinguish between right and wrong, then they do not form the requisite mens rea and cannot be found guilty of a criminal offence - which I suspect would be regarded as more serious than a breach of trust.
Are you certain you wish to stand by that? That's like saying "I know I had sex with those three women but I was wasted so it doesn't count!"
Think about it. Is that logical? Or wise?
Which part? The legality of the morality? The former I am quite sure of, the latter is subjective (and for me, no I would not regard that as acceptable at all).
As I said, Vorik did far worse than Spock and suffered no consequences.
Which indicates nothing verifiable. You made a moral statement about a situation in which you did not know the details. It, like your initial statement and follow up statements, is unverifiable.
I supposed based on canon (which may or may not be in place). The details with which we have been provided leave that as a potential interpretation of the situation. It is simply a point to consider, which is more interesting than not thinking about a situation for two years or whenever we are presented with more information.