Why is Colorado different?

True, but our const is loaded up with all kinds of junk. Practically, there's not much difference between const law and statutory law in this state because we change our const so frequently, (dozens of times in my memory, hundreds of ballot initiatives). Just because something is in the const doesn't mean it is immutable. For example, the const outlaws spring bear hunting as well, but that has not prevented the GA from taking up the issue this session. Ditto TABOR. Ditto equality for gays. Because it's easy to get things on the ballot, many laws that should be statutory have made their way into the const, and lawmakers have grown adept at doing end-runs around voter-approved initiatives. The feds couldn't care less what legislative vehicle was used to enact MMJ laws, and the fact that it's part of our const means much less than most people believe. I'm not an attorney, but if someone out there is, chime in.

It actually makes a huge difference in evaluating statutory and/or regulatory schemes which impact the exercise of a right that is now enshrined in the constitution, at least on the state level. For a statute or regulation that has a negative impact on a constitutional right to survive a legal challenge typically requires that the AG meet a much higher burden than if the right were merely statutory. On a Federal level, since the Roosevelt Supreme Court construed the Commerce clause to have eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth amendments, it probably doesn't matter. There are a couple of cases pending construing Obamacare that give some hope that the question of the expansive reading of the Commerce clause may come back before the Supremes, in which case it may also turn out to matter a great deal down the road in the context of a conflict between a state constitution and a Federal statute.