What is the alternative, under current law, if they refuse to blow or have blood drawn? Lose their license for 1 year, big deal, I would wager most who refuse are familiar with the law, because they have been in the DUI boat before. In some cases, the loss of a DL for a year could be the less severe of possible punishments. I drew a guy 9 times in 2 years on the rez, a few days in the local lock-up, DL suspended, and he went on his merry way, to re-offend.
If you don't want to require blood or breath analysis, especially under duress (force), then insist the legislators give the laws some teeth. Make it significant if they refuse. Something that tips the bar in favor of compliance, rather than refusal.
Or we could adopt the Japanese model, 0.03% limit, even the passengers can be ticketed for riding with a drunk driver. The Japanese police have this "wand" they stick in the car, and if it goes off, you are essentially screwed. Enough people wearing cheap aftershave can set it off. If you refuse to have a blood draw in Japan, you can go to prison for 3 years and face a 4k+ fine.
Personally, I would not care if every drunk driver wrapped their car around a tree or tried to take out a bridge abutment at high speed. But they don't, it is often innocent bystanders, like the family heading home from an outing, who get whacked by the drunk (no stats kept, but appx 15K people killed per year in drunk driving accidents). A very good friend of mine spent 14 days in ICU, multiple years in recovery, and was grounded from flying when he was hit broadside by a drunk about 0400 one morning. He was on his way in to preflight and the drunk blew through a red light. His BAC was 0.28. He got to plead down to a lesser charge, rather than go to jail where he belonged.
So, for me personally, it they want to shove a trocar into a drunks liver to get blood, I am OK with that.
So, let's make refusal have consequences, enough that it is better to have a blood draw than to refuse.
But, IMO, that will never happen.
bob
