The minimums are already there. Whether the minimums work or not, I guess there can be some debate. You can't really debate the evidence.
The problem with saying we're just increasing what's already there is that the minimums that are already there are barely passing constitutional muster. The case that I referred to was a 90-day minimum. The judge said he would have given 14; he thought that's what was reasonable.
Is 90 grossly disproportionate? It's really close, and he said, probably, yes. Let's let the court of appeal figure it out.
You're doubling it, so what was perhaps arguable—and I don't think it was—when you increase it, it's the nail in the coffin. These things are going to be found to be grossly disproportionate now.