Some serious questions also need to be asked of the police and the equipment and procedures they are using in these cases.
I cannot see anything very different in the aviation and road traffic alcohol procedures. other than the much lower limit for the former. Officer forms reasonable suspicion that subject has consumed alcohol - requires screening test - if passed, no action. If failed or refused, subject arrested and taken to police station. If no screening tester is available the officer has power to arrest anyway (on reasonable suspicion) as they do with drivers.
Because the aviation limit is so low the evidential breath tester in the police station cannot be used (it is designed and calibrated for a limit of 35 mcg/100ml) so a blood sample has to be taken by a doctor, and sent off for analysis. If. as in the Virgin case, the test reveals the subject to be under the limit, no further action. If it's over, subject will be charged.
This was a gruelling experience for the pilot, and we have to sympathise with what he went through, but surely the overriding need to ensure airline safety makes it a price that has to be paid. It happens to train drivers and to car drivers all the time - there is no need for new rules for pilots.
The only equipment-related difference that I can see is that if a driver blows between 35.1 and 39.9 mcg/100ml he will not be charged. There is no such leeway given with a blood test, for pilots or motorists - it's pass or fail.