When I first read about this I thought it was a bad and highly undemocratic approach to dealing with drunks. Then I got reading into it more, and perhaps the system does have merits.

In London they say drink is a major driving force in crime. The proposed system could work like it does in the USA provided that certain precautions are taken. The goal should be rehabilitation not criminalization  of drinkers. Remember, alcohol is not on its own unlawful – provided the age limits are accepted of course.

Police say that there are regular offenders, and they are regularly drunk this is the market that should be caught. If someone has conducted a crime that appears to be a result of being drunk, and its not the first time they have done it, put them on the program. If however this is a minor offence, urinating on a public alleyway for example and it is the first time they have ever been convicted of something, then a straightforward warning would likely be a more sensible approach.

With offenders paying for the test themselves, it will bring a revenue stream into the police force which will likely help to ease funding problems of the police department.

Someone who has been found guilty and placed on a sobriety program would be expected to pay a small fee for the mandatory tests, the consequences of not paying and not getting the test would be a trial. Over the lifetime of the system it is likely that drink offenses are likely to fall – serious offenders would end up on the program and know the consequences of being drunk.

They should however not be replacing completely traditional ways of dealing with alcoholic problems – social rehabilitation can work in many situations so must be continued. To my surprise, the system when implemented in South Dakota saw a drop in prison sentences. If the same can be replicated and target the trouble makers here this should help ease problems of overcrowding in prisons and underfunding in the police and prison sectors.

References
The Telegraph