I don't want to put words in your mouth but are you saying you'd have less of an objection to an automatic mandatory breathalyzer for every driver coming through the checkpoint than you do with our system where the officer has to be able to articulate why they think you're impaired before they can ask you to step out and perform field sobriety tests and/or submit to a breathalyzer? In other words, going straight to a chemical documentation of how much alcohol you've ingested without first seeing signs that you're physically impaired? That seems a little unfair to me.

I don't mean to insult you but that position seems to be inconsistent with what you said above and I suspect you're just being argumentative because your previous comment about how other countries do it turned out to be inaccurate because the legal protections in other Anglosphere countries are actually much more limited than the US of A.