Is it true that the defense of intoxication typically depends on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary?

The intoxication defense works only very rarely, and may not be available depending on state or type of offense. In Florida, the relevant statute is F.S. 775.051:  Voluntary intoxication resulting from the consumption, injection, or other use of alcohol or other controlled substance as described in chapter 893 is not a defense to any offense proscribed by law. Evidence of a defendant's voluntary intoxication is not admissible to show that the defendant lacked the specific intent to commit an offense and is not admissible to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense, except when the consumption, injection, or use of a controlled substance under chapter 893 was pursuant to a lawful prescription issued to the defendant by a practitioner as defined in s. 893.02. Intoxication is an affirmative defense, with the burden on the defendant. I have used it successfully in cases where women have been given intoxicating medications (i.e. "roofied") without their consent and then committed offenses like trespassing, traffic offenses, etc. For a short, but clear, explanation of the defense, look at Carter v. State, 710 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Good luck!