I am definitely against drunk driving but I am more against the introduction of such technologies, whether compelled by legislation as in this case, or voluntar

I am definitely against drunk driving but I am more against the introduction of such technologies, whether compelled by legislation as in this case, or voluntarily built by car manufacturers. People need to have a high degree of choice and agency over their lives, and they need to be able to make decisions for themselves. For example, lots of people drive their cars after having a beer or wine at a meal and are totally safe to do so. Will they be prevented by such technology? What about false positives? What about the additional cost to all car owners - why does a small number of deaths (10000 a year per this article) need to compel hundreds of millions of people into paying hundreds more for such technology? The introduction of this technology is also going to normalize this type of intrusion into our lives and private spaces more broadly. Slippery slopes may be a logical fallacy in that one decision does not automatically compel another, but such changes sure do make it much more politically expedient to broaden this type of statist expansionism. Why can't the tools we own just be the things we own, instead of being hijacked to not perform the tasks we need them to? We see incremental legislative changes like this all the time - for example a new tax that might start at a low rate and is slowly increased. Why do we think this will be any different?