Is it improper to instruct with a portion of the insanity instruction that use of intoxicants is not the only ground for the insanity defense?

Defendant argues that, because use of intoxicants was not the only ground for his insanity defense, it was improper to instruct with this portion of the insanity instruction. He relies primarily on People v. Robinson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 421, where the court stated that Penal Code section 25.5 "erects an absolute bar prohibiting use of one's voluntary ingestion of intoxicants as the sole basis for an insanity defense, regardless whether the substances caused organic damage or a settled mental defect or disorder which persists after the immediate effects of the intoxicant have worn off. In other words, if an alcoholic or drug addict attempts to use his problem as an escape hatch, he will find that section 25.5 has shut and bolted the opening." (Id. at p. 427.)