I don't.
I understand the rationale with fuel purchases because they are so different than most other purchases however, that is a slippery slope precedent.
My problem with this type of legislation, in reaction to any problem or issue, is that it presumes and pronounces everyone guilty before they have committed any crime.
I am not a fan of any legislation that presumes me or anyone else is guilty before a crime has been committed.
Fuel purchases are somewhat different than most purchases in that you already have the product in your possession (your fuel tank) before you pay for it. Most items you may have in your hands but they are not your possessions until you have paid for them. You also are not presumed to be stealing them until you have paid for them either. For discussion purposes if we use fuel as the example, the general principle being that if a person has not stolen any fuel and has not shown any intention of stealing fuel why then does the law treat that person not only as someone who might steal fuel but worse, as a criminal who will steal fuel?
If society shifts to a paradigm where it is acceptable to presume that everyone is a thief before they have stolen anything then the logical conclusion to this would eventually be that every single item or service that you will ever intend to purchase will have to be paid for in advance of you being able to lay your hands on it or see the results of the workmanship.
We are already quite far down that road already as a result of on-line shopping but that is by choice and is a far cry from your government legislating that you are a thief, and therefore must pay in advance, before you have stolen anything.
Methinks you miss the salient point to this legislation. Walking out of a store with a stolen item is not very likely to end in the death of someone who may try to stop them, at least not in Canada, but the gas thief has a 3,000 pound weapon to deter anyone from stopping him, or her. The law isn't treating anyone as a criminal, but it will prevent the criminally minded from injuring, maiming, or killing anyone in their attempt to flee the scene.
Put yourself in the station attendant's shoes and consider this. Companies owning the stations have, in the past, held attendants responsible for losses from gas and go thefts. This may have been addressed in the legislation as well, I'm not sure about that, but, if you were the attendant on shift at 1:00 am, all alone, how would you want to react when you saw a vehicle pull away after stealing $100.00 worth of fuel, when you might make that, or less, on your shift?
Here in BC, one poor guy was doing just that, trying to stop a car that left without paying. He was knocked down by the car, fell underneath and was dragged for several hundred feet to a horrifying death. There were other incidents like this also where injuries occurred, but no deaths. In BC, particularly in the Lower Mainland around Vancouver, we have the highest fuel prices in North America! Thieves are drilling holes in the bottom of truck fuel tanks to steal gas!
If people have sympathy for the sometimes dangerous working conditions of others, then they should not feel this law is an attack on them, but is instead, a good step to protect life and limb of those who do those jobs.