> Discontinue consumption of substances offered to you by someone who has previously intoxicated you without your consent.

So you agree there wasn't consent the first time. Sounds like refuting yourself to me.

If the option to resist the imposition is not presented, the question of consent has not been called.

The act occurs without consent but also without dissent.

When likely future intent is made known by past actions, the question of consent has been called and may be answered.

You raise an interesting challenge and it is a scenario I haven't considered before. I am happy to discuss it and any other issues you find with my morality, but I would prefer if we could please agree that language is an approximation of meaning, attempt to seek clarity before semantic assertions, and that I be allowed to speak for myself.