My opinion based on going through the clearance process for the NSA is that the federal gov't is fairly pragmatic and the anti-drug use policy is primarily a way of ensuring state secrets are not leaked, via extortion, bribery, etc. For instance, buying drugs from people who might intend to blackmail with that information at a later point. See also someone with e.g. a gambling addiction, skeletons in one's closet. In general, owing people money, wanting certain personal things hidden, and so on tends to compromise one's integrity. Which is to say, if you can demonstrate that integrity it is my belief that no one would deny clearance on moralistic grounds.
One line of thinking around requiring usage of preferred pronouns is that normalizing the act of giving/asking for pronouns allows for more inclusive spaces. For instance, if someone is transitioning between genders it might not be obvious what their gender identity is, and assuming their gender identity can lead to further dysphoria. At the same time, if you are someone who sees that the only people who get asked for their pronouns are people who do not obviously exist at either of edge of the gender spectrum, then the act of being asked for pronouns is tantamount to someone admitting their own confusion of your identity. This issue can be resolved for all parties and gender identities when asking/giving pronoun preference is the norm. For people with more straightforwardly normative gender identities, offering preferred pronouns is an act of solidarity with people who might not have the privilege of their gender identity being so obvious.