In 2008 Al Diamon, a columnist with whom I share a scholarly interest in single malt scotch whisky, called to ask who was interested in running for Maine’s second congressional district. I couldn’t tell him, but promised to ask around. Turned out that there was no one. Prospective candidates knew that 2008 was going to be a bad year for Republicans. The incumbent, Mike Micheau, hadn’t offended many people. Historically voters in Maine’s second district rarely reject incumbents.

So I asked half a dozen GOP leaders if they thought I should run. All encouraged me. They all seemed relieved to have a candidate who could speak in complete sentences, and had no criminal record. They wanted a name on the ballot. They were not hoping for a winner.

That suited me. Getting an oodle or two of GOP funds did not suit me. I’d already decided to rely on my own savings and credit. This allowed me to say whatever I thought should be said without wasting donations from people betting on a victory. It has long been clear to me that political professionals always follow Rule #1: never assume voters have IQs above room temperature.

Seem a little harsh? Let’s qualify it a little. Some voters know that the usual repertoire of dodges, gimmicks, pretense, and flim-flam wouldn’t impress an organ grinder’s monkey. They also know that nobody ever won an election with an exclusive base of intelligent and informed voters. Most voters are not very interested in politics. They may know they should pay attention, but no one ever got anyone interested by telling them they should be interested.

All political professionals know that simple name recognition is vital. Lawn signs, bumper stickers, posters, advertisements promote simple recognition without conveying much information. A candidate’s smiling face with his smiling wife, a couple of smiling children and a friendly-looking dog are reassuring. The whole assembly is meant to show that the guy may be a politician, but he’s also human.

My objective was to show the second district’s voters what a serious political campaign looks like. I’m not certain that mine was the only serious campaign in that year, but I’m guessing it was. To be clear, “solemn” and “serious” are not synonyms. American campaigns are usually boringly solemn, rarely serious. I sold all my stock holdings to pay for the campaign. How serious is that?

The point of this column is examine the courage required of politicians hungry for office. It happens that I was interviewed by a couple of fellows on a Bangor station when a citizen called to ask if I favored legalizing marijuana. There had been no plans to campaign on that question, but I didn’t wish to evade … I answered “yes.”

It happened that in 1992 I’d read a symposium with three or four veterans of the War on Drugs in the conservative National Review. They went to war convinced that it was necessary. They worked hard to win. They ended accepting that their efforts a huge waste of time, money, and misdirected police energy. As it happens, I had just read an essay by a Mexican police official in which he detailed his successes against the cartels … and concluded that long-term results had not justified the effort.

In 2005 the Nobel Prize economist and Milton Friedman gathered support from 500 economists who called for an end to the War on Marijuana. The economic problem is simple and incurable. Arrest the growers, smugglers, wholesalers, retailers, the amateurs, the professional and the supply of drugs will diminish, When supply is diminished and demand is not, price goes up. When price goes up profits go up and more people are drawn in the trade. And so it goes. And so it must continue to go.

Having taken a sudden position in response to the call, I decided to add a little substance. Farmington’s agricultural fair was running at the time so I stopped by the Exhibition Hall and asked two evangelicals manning a literature table what they thought of legalization. They supported it enthusiastically and led me across the aisle to talk to a man handing out pocket bibles. He was sure that the weed had given his AIDS-afflicted brother an extra year of life.

Invited to address a Christian Civic League meeting I explained my position to them. They didn’t much like it, but applauded politely. Not long after, I drove to Starks to address the multitude of weed-fiends gathered at Harry Brown’s Farm. They smoked and listened drowsily as I described the effects of a full tray of brownies. Tasted odd, but not repulsive. There was nothing else to eat at the time. Didn’t care for the woozy results and went to bed to sleep it off. Told them I had the most annoying dreams; dumbest dialogue, plot made no sense, characters uninteresting. Decided that was all I ever wanted, but couldn’t see any reason to deprive them of such experiences if that’s what they liked. My audience responded with tepid applause.

When asked about legalization Rep. Michaud explained that he was opposed “because of the kids.” Was there another candidate, Republican or Democrat, who came out in favor of legalization in 2008? There must have been another, but I never heard of him.

This month the House passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act to decriminalize marijuana and resolve conflicts between state and federal law. Rep. Chellie Pingree has written a column explaining how proud of herself she is for supporting MORE. She did not write a column advocating decriminalization in 2008. She declined to make herself proud in the years that followed. Like her colleagues she waited until it was safe to become proud. The shift in public opinion allowed her to become proud of herself. She did nothing to lead that shift.

Pingree simply followed the established standards of courage and leadership prevailing in America’s political class.

John Frary of Farmington, the GOP candidate for U.S. Congress in 2008, is a retired history professor, an emeritus Board Member of Maine Taxpayers United, a Maine Citizen’s Coalition Board member, and publisher of FraryHomeCompanion.com. He can be reached at jfrary8070@aol.com.