Not warranted

My two cents' worth on the Cons' breathalyzer bill which has given rise to a wide range of discussion today...

As "tough on crime" pandering measures go, I'd actually see this as one of the less harmful ones possible. While the current state of the law theoretically requires reasonable and probable grounds on the part of the police to justify a demand for a breathalyzer sample, the low standards in practice (either a subjective perception of fairly broad indicia of alcohol consumption or an admission that the driver drank alcohol at some point) don't offer more than a modicum of protection to citizens in any event.

In fact, one could make the case that the effect of the bill will simply be to create a more honest statement about how the law works in practice. And unlike concepts like mandatory minimum sentences or age of consent which actually create offences or jail terms where they otherwise wouldn't have existed, the actual harm caused by the bill toward any individual would appear to be minimal.

That said, though, there doesn't seem to be a particularly strong rationale to accept even the relatively small amount of damage which might be caused by the bill - so the apparent acceptance from all sides looks to be a significant problem. And I'd hope that all of the opposition parties will at least challenge the Cons to provide a public accounting as to what problem they think the bill is supposed to solve, even if they all wind up supporting it in the end.