A few weeks ago, I noted that four states had legalized same-sex marriage. Since then, Maine has become the fifth state, New Hampshire and New York may join the trend within days or weeks.

There’s another moving trend that’s catching up to American’s reality: in the last two weeks, Minnesota and New Hampshire have become the 14th and 15th states to approve the medicinal use of marijuana.

We have a medical marijuana law here in Vermont. Just as was the case with same-sex civil unions, passing a law letting sick people smoke pot did not cause the walls to fall in. After getting a doctor’s prescription, people whose conditions would be improved by smoking (or eating) marijuana can register with the state and then possess two mature and seven immature plants. Still imperfect, the law does not describe a legal pathway to obtaining those plants, but still… progress.

(Yes, I hear the critics’ voices. “Sure, everyone runs down to a doctor feel-good and soon they’re all toking up.” There may be abuses of the system – any system of anything is susceptible to abuse – but after five years, there are fewer than 200 people enrolled in Vermont’s medical marijuana registry, suggesting that both patients and doctors take this seriously.)

Last week, California’s Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger – while stopping short of advocating the legalization of marijuana – said it’s worth debating what legalization would mean in terms of saving money on law enforcement and prisons and enhanced revenues for state coffers (via a tax on legal marijuana). California’s Board of Equalization estimates that marijuana taxes could bring in $1.3 billion a year to the cash-strapped state.

Better still, if pot were legalized, maybe Americans could get some civil liberties back. Maybe police departments wouldn’t have the expense of flying helicopters over state forests, looking for plants and officers wouldn’t have to cruise through neighborhoods with heat-sensing devices, trying to find indoor growers. (And if those indoor growers could bring their plants out into the sunlight, think of all the electricity we’d save.)

Like same-sex marriage, the debate on marijuana use has to come out of the closet in America. I live in a college town and when I speak to college administrators privately – away from fear of sanction – they all say they would rather not have students use any mood or mind altering substances. They acknowledge, however, that mood alteration will occur and they would far rather see them smoke pot and sit around listening to music than have them drinking beer (the default option). The beer leads to fighting and medical and legal intervention and destroyed property. Many college-town cops will tell you the same thing.

“Just say no” doesn’t work and just because Nancy Reagan needed a “cause” 25 years ago is a poor reason to keep trying to enforce an asinine prohibition. President Obama, as I wrote, will not lead us into the future on this, but he may at least help bring us out of the past. A youthful toker himself, he’s said that he thinks marijuana should be decriminalized, although he leaves that decision to the states. Although federal laws regarding marijuana are still on the books, Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered the Justice Department to not prosecute marijuana use if it conforms to medical marijuana laws in states that have such statutes.

© Mark Floegel, 2009

In the month since Barack Obama’s inauguration, we’ve been (mis)treated to some of the worst displays of puerile politics in recent memory, which might be amusing, if the stakes – both immediate and long-term – were not so high.

We all know the immediate stakes are the success of the stimulus package and the health of the economy. You know, can you keep your job, stay in your house, feed your family. Stuff like that.

The long-term stakes have to do with which party will run the United States in the remainder of the 21st century. It works like this: the Constitution says we will have a census every ten years. The next one’s due in 2010. Based on census information, state legislatures redraw congressional districts within their states. We all know this process, gerrymandering, is the worst example of political sausage making we have. Those of us who believe in good government long for the day when the courts step in and prescribe a fair system, so we don’t wind up with congressional districts that look like the Illinois Fourth.

That day will come. It won’t come in time to stop the next re-apportionment. So the question is: which party will dominate state legislatures in the years 2010-2015? Answer: whichever party stops playing stupid political games and at this point it’s unclear either party will do that.

The Republicans, the party of “no,” would rather wreck the economy than allow President Obama and the Democratic majority to accomplish anything. When times are good, people have more important things to do than watch Congress. When keeping one’s job depends on Congressional action (or inaction), voters pay attention and right now there’s not much love out there for the GOP in Congress.

Republican governors, like California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger and Vermont’s Jim Douglas are vocal about the need for federal money to keep their states going. Some Republican governors, like South Carolina’s Mark Sanford, Alaska’s Sarah Palin, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Texas’s Rick Perry, grumbled and criticized the stimulus package, then stuck their hands out for their states’ share.

It’s odd to watch normally lock-step Republicans acting all confused and fratricidal (i.e., like Democrats). I don’t think it will play well at the state-level ballot box in 2010.

On the other hand, the Democrats have a golden opportunity to screw up and they rarely let one pass. Howard Dean – a former Vermont governor – rode a wave of grassroots support to become chair of the Democratic National Committee in 2004, much to the chagrin of the DC beltway Dems. As chair, Mr. Dean forced his “50 state strategy” down the protesting throats of the congressional campaign committee. Rahm Emanuel, then chair of that committee famously left a meeting with Mr. Dean in a cloud of blue language.

After sweeping Democratic wins in 2006 and 2008, it’s clear Howard Dean was right, but beltway Dems have thick heads. Although Mr. Obama has gone to great lengths to be gracious to the likes of Joe Lieberman and Judd Gregg, he’s allowed chief of staff Mr. Emanuel to freeze Mr. Dean out of the new ascendancy, even leaving him uninvited even to the installation of his successor at the DNC.

Spats worthy of seventh grade are nothing new to DC and if Howard Dean doesn’t have a thick skin, he should. What is more important is that new DNC chair Tim Kaine acknowledge Mr. Dean’s vision and keep the pedal down on the 50-state strategy or he stands a good chance of returning to Republicans their dream of a permanent majority.

© 2009, Mark Floegel