There is no such thing as a switch that can only work from some arbitrary cause. The switch is either capable of disabling the car or not.

"equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology"

Is indistinguishable from

"equipped with driving prevention technology"

"equipped with a mechanism that prevents driving without the key"

is distinguishable from

"equipped with a mechanism that prevents driving".

Doesn't the reason you can't drive actually matter?

The ignition lock doesn't know or care what the reason is that you don't have the key.

On the books, the lock is there to allow only the owner to operate the car.

Yet here you are, without the key, but still the owner, and yet you still can't operate the car.

The ignition is not preventing you from operating the car because you are not the owner.

Tools get misused constantly and there's no end to mission creep when "think of the children", "you're helping the terrorists win", "the cartels were involved", etc. cards are played. Also we are in an era of incredibly flexible definitions of words. What you consider to be 'impaired driving' today might not be what the government considers it to be when they don't like you.

By this logic I can stretch any law to any meaning.

The original claim was a bill mandating a remote kill switch and we've now backpedalled to "words might have a different meaning tomorrow".

So all laws bad, or just this one?