I'm inclined to agree with you, your point about constitutionality is well taken. I know we're getting into thorny political philosophy at this point, but I'd be inclined to support this bill, even if there is a good case to be made that it's unconstitutional. In my opinion, any purpose served by having a constitution is in the benefit of the people and the state, if the constitution proscribes something that would definitely benefit the state, then it is the constitution which is wrong.

Whether or not this would be ultimately beneficial, or the principle that the constitution is trying to protect here (don't interfere in the affairs of lawful citizens) is more important in the end are value judgements, and difficult ones at that. I don't doubt that if my circumstances were different I would be making an argument like yours.