- In 1997, Michael Pollan wrote an essay, a section of which was originally "about making opium tea from his home-grown poppies and drinking the tea". He had some "fear that the Drug Enforcement Administration would raid his house and seize his property" if this were published, as he thought it could be viewed as “taunting the government.”
- Pollan's new (2021) book "This is Your Mind on Plants" restores that material. (Which, incidentally, involved finding a zip drive, and using LibreOffice to read the old Word document.)
- Recently, in a Tim Ferris podcast, Pollan's version of the events of 1997 (see https://tim.blog/2021/06/30/michael-pollan-this-is-your-mind... starting with the phrase "in the ’90s at the height of the drug war") kind of suggests that the section was left out because of the advice he got from the lawyers of Harper’s Magazine.
- (Though he does mention their lawyer saying "you must publish this article for the good of the Republic", and a contract the publisher made saying “If you get arrested, we will not only defend you, we will pay your wife a salary for the whole amount of time it takes for you to defend yourself and if necessary, serve your sentence. And if they take your house, we’ll buy you a comparable new one.”)
- In the posted submission here, John R. "Rick" MacArthur, the president and publisher of Harper's Magazine, points out they did their very best to get him to publish it, and it was Michael Pollan who "insisted on withdrawing the passages about making and drinking the tea".
- It concludes with "Pollan took the easy way out. I don’t blame him for having been afraid. He just now shouldn’t try to lay responsibility for his decision on anyone but himself."
That's the summary, but after having read both the posted article and the transcript of the podcast (Edit: and most of the 1997 article, which is a fine picture of paranoia), it's not clear to me what disagreement there is, if any. Both versions seem to agree almost entirely: both versions point out that the publisher heavily pushed Pollan to publish the article in its entirety, even offering him that amazing contract, and it was Pollan who chickened out.
The main disagreement seems to be about Pollan's speculation in the podcast:
> I mean, he’s a crusading publisher, like a crusading journalist. And I shouldn’t speak for him, but my guess is he was hoping something would happen. He was hoping I would get arrested. This would put Harper’s on the map. This would be a giant case. He would take it to the Supreme Court, and he would. He has bottomless pockets. I mean, and publishing for him is kind of an avocation. And he was always looking for the big story that Harper’s would get involved with. I mean, we saw that just last year with the Harper’s letter around free speech versus the efforts to curb free speech in the name of various woke values. He’s not afraid of controversy.
Here the publisher himself mentions "It was a bitter blow to me, because I have always put the freedom to publish in the forefront of my work, and I lost some respect for Pollan after that", so the entire thing seems a non-issue to me. All we've left of the disagreement is
• the (rich, fearless) publisher encouraging an author in every way possible to publish something controversial,
• the (not-so-rich, not-so-fearless) author thinking/speculating something along the lines of "it's easy for you, but I'm not so bold as to court controversy; it's [not] my cup of tea".
I'm just gobsmacked that the publisher saw himself as superior to Pollan given that neither of them was willing to risk federal charges and possible prison. There was nothing stopping MacArthur from making his own opium tea and drinking it.
This seems like a weird spat over an author deciding to omit an admission of illegal activity from his published works. It’s quite amazing that Harpers went so far as to commit to defending him and financially compensating him to extreme degrees (including the value of his house, if seized) in the unlikely event that he was prosecuted.
It’s strange that Pollan would turn around and try to shift blame rather than simply staying quiet. What does he think he stands to gain by throwing his former publisher, who went to great lengths to support him, under the bus? Why not simply let it stay in the past? Or admit the truth and give credit where credit is due?
I have to say, the more of Pollan’s work I read the less I enjoy his writings. He seems intent on riding the current waves of pro-drug and anti-enforcement sentiment to propel his own notoriety as an author. This also manifests as very one-sided portrayals of drug use that glorify and exaggerate the benefits while downplaying the negatives. In his book “How to Change Your Mind” I felt that every pro-psychedelic argument was presented with little questioning, while he only offered easy strawman counter arguments as skepticism, easily dismissed by the reader after reading a few more chapters of his pro-psychedelic writings.
“How to Change Your Mind” was very popular several years ago and continues to circulate in certain circles. I’ve read many anecdotes of people who sought psychedelics after reading his book with the expectation of life-changing experiences or psychedelic treatments for their conditions, only to be disappointed when they didn’t experience the miraculous experiences and transformations he describes.
I wish we had a more engaging alternative writer to reference about the realities of psychedelics and other drugs. Someone who was more interested in delivering realistic, albeit necessarily less boring, descriptions of the realities of this space. Some of the depictions of psychedelics as miracle cure-all medicines have gotten out of control and have become completely detached from the actual research, which puts a heavy emphasis on many (10-20 or more) therapy sessions surrounding the guided and monitored psychedelic administration. These books tend to downplay the realities and instead glorify the romantic notion of mushrooms as a forbidden, mystical cure for all ailments. The realities are much less clear-cut and definitely not always as positive as they sound in these modern psychedelic mysticism books.
>I wish we had a more engaging alternative writer to reference about the realities of psychedelics and other drugs. Someone who was more interested in delivering realistic, albeit necessarily less boring, descriptions of the realities of this space.
Was pollen really all that disingenuous in the reality of psych use/effectiveness at treating medical conditions?
Seems his claims were pretty in-line with the research overall. If anyone has a quote of pollen overstating benefits, feel free to post the quote as I, for one, would like to see it.
I'm surprised by this view of how to change your mind. Most of his personal experiences in the book mentioned there were no major changes. I also thought the book was level headed compared to the typical stuff you read about psychedelics. His history section was really neutral and all of the trips were done under supervision of a therapist. If you came away from that book expecting miracles I think you just hear what you want to hear.
'I've read many anecdotes of people who sought psychedelics after reading his book with the expectation of life-changing experiences or psychedelic treatments for their conditions, only to be disappointed when they didn't experience the miraculous experiences and transformations he describes."
Now this sounds at least as interesting as anything Pollan himself writes about.
I'd be interested in hearing the details of what they tried and how (ie. their set and setting).
Why these substances work for some people and not others (even when administered in the exact same therapeutic settings and using the same protocols) is one of the biggest open questions in psychedelic research.
It’s almost as if taking cannabis (and a few other things) off schedule 1 would allow for publicly funded research into the dangers and benefits of these drugs so that we all could be better informed.
He does seem to be sliding down hill. A decade ago I picked up his book The Botany of Desire not knowing what kind of writer he was or his fame. It was a very interesting read, especially the part about apples and the history of their variety. It led me to try other, more delicious varieties than I had known. It also included a more surprising section on cannabis. He recounts a time when he grew it in his garden (which tells you that his interests aren't only agrarian or abstract). The cannabis growing account ends with a rather humorous story about him selling firewood to a person who shows up in his driveway and turns out to be a sheriff in his day job. A frantic attempt to dispose of the aforementioned illegal controlled substance ensues so that the sheriff doesn't finds out, and I won't ruin the ending.
Fastforward to the other articles and books mentioned here, and I'm starting to wonder if this earliest episode led him to try more daring and far riskier exploits. Has writing about drug cultivation and his conflicts with authorities large and small become his shtick?
Watch Hamilton Morris’s interview with Pollan. I think people are starting to get tired of his schtick, so he’s no longer getting the benefit of the doubt.
> I’ve read many anecdotes of people who sought psychedelics after reading his book with the expectation of life-changing experiences or psychedelic treatments for their conditions, only to be disappointed when they didn’t experience the miraculous experiences and transformations he describes.
Wholeheartedly agree. People looking to cure their depression are going to quite surprised if they actually find themselves in the worst imaginable hell possible.
It's so bewildering how substances like psychadelics and opiods can simultaneous be the thing producing the most heavenly euphoria or the most terrifying hell; by a roll of the dice too in psychadelic's case. The universe is funny.
I saw Michael Pollan speak many years ago, ~2005?, at the LA public library, about _The Omnivore’s Dilemma_. He talked about nostalgia for family farms; I grew up in Iowa on a family farm, and in 2005 I knew that rural America had been depopulated and small family farms were few and far between. I asked him how that “density” could be restored, to recreate what he wanted. He had nothing to say, nor had much to say about the forces that had led to the current state of agriculture.
It was an extremely unsatisfying answer as part of an unsatisfying talk. He struck me as an unserious person.
He did a netflix documentary on food that, frankly, left me with the impression that he's a pseudo-intellectual.
He went off on the harms of GMO and the wonders of whole foods. He used a lot of flowery language which ultimately was him saying "See, science is garbage, buy my new age theory of life!".
"[Pollen's] recent remarks on a radio podcast during which he laughingly speculates about my motives were simply not true: 'My guess is he was hoping something would happen. He was hoping I would get arrested. This would put Harper’s on the map. This would be a giant case; he would take it in front of the Supreme Court, and he would. You know he has bottomless pockets.'"
It seems like this podcast comment might have sufficiently motivated the editor (McArthur) to write this article. Not that this is a bad thing. We all have a sense what it's like to want to restore truth to an unjust public comment.
Aside: We'll never quite know pollen's motive for censorshing his book's personal psychedelic use content.. could be as simple as arguably unfounded paranoia.
Interesting. I listened to this on the Tim Ferris podcast and, foolishly in retrospect, just took it at face value. I generally enjoy Pollan and I suppose I assume he has integrity, or is trustworthy in his writing and podcasting.
Regardless, this seems to potentially fall into the category of misremembering or simply having a different frame of reference at the time. Diverging points of view are common enough, especially within this time frame.
I definitely came away from the podcast with no bad feelings about anyone. While it would have been nice if Pollan didn’t incite this kind of response through his recollection, it seems harmless enough.
It is important though to be as objective as possible with things like this since no one could possibly fact check it.
One of the reasons I stopped listening to Ferris’s podcast is that he’s a totally uncritical interviewer. His guests are allowed to blatantly self promote
Not to invoke Godwin’s rule, but this scenario seems a bit too far off from acceptable for “that’s now how I remember things going down” to just let it slide, blaming someone else with a clearly different storyline in a fundamental sense seems a lot more deliberate on the persons part. Just because you didn’t care enough about he involved subjects to walk away from a podcast doesn’t mean the truth can just be twisted any way?
Also is it possible to walk away from a podcast offended at all? The explosion of this medium and the way everyone seems to consume it suggests you can’t afford to emotionally involve with what you’re listening to anymore.
What's missing from the article and the comments is the fact that Michael Pollan mentions that a friend of his, Jim Hogshire, had recently been put in jail after a raid by a SWAT team for growing poppies and having a book related to opium in the house. This fueled his paranoia for having the same thing happen to him. Seems a fairly reasonable reaction.
Perhaps too off topic, but given how easy it is get get opiates from poppy 'milk' - as shown from the original unpublished article - I've wondered why we don't see more of it from fairly tame occasional use like Pollan to addicts going around scoring and milking poppy bulbs in the neighborhood.
Poppies seem to grow really easily in a lot of places. You don't have to be a fancy chemist to just smoke or shoot the gunk.
Here's a typical Vice story on this, big headline, fairly unsatisfying reality lol.
In Pollan’s latest book, and in the original Harper’s article, he references the book Opium for the Masses by Jim Hogshire. After listening to the book, I went to the google machine and found that the book is readily available on Amazon, and even on Kindle!
Just to give a counter example, I know of Michael Pollan from his being a regular guest on NPR’s Fresh Air where he discusses the books that he has written, in a career which dates back to the 1990s. His books frequently cover aspects of the hacker ethos.
My psychiatrist father was just talking to me about this book yesterday, who definitely does not listen to Joe Rogan. Don't give Joe Rogan so much credit.
Please stop summarizing articles you didn't write. It isn't helpful or convenient. Just post the link you found interesting with a comment about why you found it interesting.
[+] [-] svat|4 years ago|reply
- In 1997, Michael Pollan wrote an essay, a section of which was originally "about making opium tea from his home-grown poppies and drinking the tea". He had some "fear that the Drug Enforcement Administration would raid his house and seize his property" if this were published, as he thought it could be viewed as “taunting the government.”
- The published version (available at https://www.wesjones.com/pollan1.htm as pointed out by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27804124), under the title "Opium, Made Easy" in Harper’s Magazine, left out that section.
- Pollan's new (2021) book "This is Your Mind on Plants" restores that material. (Which, incidentally, involved finding a zip drive, and using LibreOffice to read the old Word document.)
- Recently, in a Tim Ferris podcast, Pollan's version of the events of 1997 (see https://tim.blog/2021/06/30/michael-pollan-this-is-your-mind... starting with the phrase "in the ’90s at the height of the drug war") kind of suggests that the section was left out because of the advice he got from the lawyers of Harper’s Magazine.
- (Though he does mention their lawyer saying "you must publish this article for the good of the Republic", and a contract the publisher made saying “If you get arrested, we will not only defend you, we will pay your wife a salary for the whole amount of time it takes for you to defend yourself and if necessary, serve your sentence. And if they take your house, we’ll buy you a comparable new one.”)
- In the posted submission here, John R. "Rick" MacArthur, the president and publisher of Harper's Magazine, points out they did their very best to get him to publish it, and it was Michael Pollan who "insisted on withdrawing the passages about making and drinking the tea".
- It concludes with "Pollan took the easy way out. I don’t blame him for having been afraid. He just now shouldn’t try to lay responsibility for his decision on anyone but himself."
That's the summary, but after having read both the posted article and the transcript of the podcast (Edit: and most of the 1997 article, which is a fine picture of paranoia), it's not clear to me what disagreement there is, if any. Both versions seem to agree almost entirely: both versions point out that the publisher heavily pushed Pollan to publish the article in its entirety, even offering him that amazing contract, and it was Pollan who chickened out.
The main disagreement seems to be about Pollan's speculation in the podcast:
> I mean, he’s a crusading publisher, like a crusading journalist. And I shouldn’t speak for him, but my guess is he was hoping something would happen. He was hoping I would get arrested. This would put Harper’s on the map. This would be a giant case. He would take it to the Supreme Court, and he would. He has bottomless pockets. I mean, and publishing for him is kind of an avocation. And he was always looking for the big story that Harper’s would get involved with. I mean, we saw that just last year with the Harper’s letter around free speech versus the efforts to curb free speech in the name of various woke values. He’s not afraid of controversy.
Here the publisher himself mentions "It was a bitter blow to me, because I have always put the freedom to publish in the forefront of my work, and I lost some respect for Pollan after that", so the entire thing seems a non-issue to me. All we've left of the disagreement is
• the (rich, fearless) publisher encouraging an author in every way possible to publish something controversial,
• the (not-so-rich, not-so-fearless) author thinking/speculating something along the lines of "it's easy for you, but I'm not so bold as to court controversy; it's [not] my cup of tea".
[+] [-] edge17|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wpietri|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|4 years ago|reply
It’s strange that Pollan would turn around and try to shift blame rather than simply staying quiet. What does he think he stands to gain by throwing his former publisher, who went to great lengths to support him, under the bus? Why not simply let it stay in the past? Or admit the truth and give credit where credit is due?
I have to say, the more of Pollan’s work I read the less I enjoy his writings. He seems intent on riding the current waves of pro-drug and anti-enforcement sentiment to propel his own notoriety as an author. This also manifests as very one-sided portrayals of drug use that glorify and exaggerate the benefits while downplaying the negatives. In his book “How to Change Your Mind” I felt that every pro-psychedelic argument was presented with little questioning, while he only offered easy strawman counter arguments as skepticism, easily dismissed by the reader after reading a few more chapters of his pro-psychedelic writings.
“How to Change Your Mind” was very popular several years ago and continues to circulate in certain circles. I’ve read many anecdotes of people who sought psychedelics after reading his book with the expectation of life-changing experiences or psychedelic treatments for their conditions, only to be disappointed when they didn’t experience the miraculous experiences and transformations he describes.
I wish we had a more engaging alternative writer to reference about the realities of psychedelics and other drugs. Someone who was more interested in delivering realistic, albeit necessarily less boring, descriptions of the realities of this space. Some of the depictions of psychedelics as miracle cure-all medicines have gotten out of control and have become completely detached from the actual research, which puts a heavy emphasis on many (10-20 or more) therapy sessions surrounding the guided and monitored psychedelic administration. These books tend to downplay the realities and instead glorify the romantic notion of mushrooms as a forbidden, mystical cure for all ailments. The realities are much less clear-cut and definitely not always as positive as they sound in these modern psychedelic mysticism books.
[+] [-] elevenoh|4 years ago|reply
Was pollen really all that disingenuous in the reality of psych use/effectiveness at treating medical conditions?
Seems his claims were pretty in-line with the research overall. If anyone has a quote of pollen overstating benefits, feel free to post the quote as I, for one, would like to see it.
[+] [-] tayo42|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmoriarty|4 years ago|reply
Now this sounds at least as interesting as anything Pollan himself writes about.
I'd be interested in hearing the details of what they tried and how (ie. their set and setting).
Why these substances work for some people and not others (even when administered in the exact same therapeutic settings and using the same protocols) is one of the biggest open questions in psychedelic research.
[+] [-] IgorPartola|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hcrisp|4 years ago|reply
Fastforward to the other articles and books mentioned here, and I'm starting to wonder if this earliest episode led him to try more daring and far riskier exploits. Has writing about drug cultivation and his conflicts with authorities large and small become his shtick?
[+] [-] thehappypm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alex3917|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slibhb|4 years ago|reply
I'm in this camp (though I've never read Pollan).
[+] [-] reducesuffering|4 years ago|reply
Wholeheartedly agree. People looking to cure their depression are going to quite surprised if they actually find themselves in the worst imaginable hell possible.
It's so bewildering how substances like psychadelics and opiods can simultaneous be the thing producing the most heavenly euphoria or the most terrifying hell; by a roll of the dice too in psychadelic's case. The universe is funny.
[+] [-] jonstewart|4 years ago|reply
It was an extremely unsatisfying answer as part of an unsatisfying talk. He struck me as an unserious person.
[+] [-] specialist|4 years ago|reply
Pay kids to move to, or simply stay, in Kansas.
After the kids get some relevant degrees, give them zero interest loans, new tractors, whatever. I really don't care what it costs.
Simply redirect all those agricultural subsidies from corporations to families.
[+] [-] t8e56vd4ih|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cogman10|4 years ago|reply
He went off on the harms of GMO and the wonders of whole foods. He used a lot of flowery language which ultimately was him saying "See, science is garbage, buy my new age theory of life!".
[+] [-] mdbb|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] elevenoh|4 years ago|reply
It seems like this podcast comment might have sufficiently motivated the editor (McArthur) to write this article. Not that this is a bad thing. We all have a sense what it's like to want to restore truth to an unjust public comment.
Aside: We'll never quite know pollen's motive for censorshing his book's personal psychedelic use content.. could be as simple as arguably unfounded paranoia.
[+] [-] gregsadetsky|4 years ago|reply
https://www.wesjones.com/pollan1.htm
Very interesting, thanks!
[+] [-] steve_adams_86|4 years ago|reply
Regardless, this seems to potentially fall into the category of misremembering or simply having a different frame of reference at the time. Diverging points of view are common enough, especially within this time frame.
I definitely came away from the podcast with no bad feelings about anyone. While it would have been nice if Pollan didn’t incite this kind of response through his recollection, it seems harmless enough.
It is important though to be as objective as possible with things like this since no one could possibly fact check it.
[+] [-] LargeWu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ramraj07|4 years ago|reply
Also is it possible to walk away from a podcast offended at all? The explosion of this medium and the way everyone seems to consume it suggests you can’t afford to emotionally involve with what you’re listening to anymore.
[+] [-] ulchabhanrua|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glennpratt|4 years ago|reply
https://armchairexpertpod.com/pods/michael-pollan
For what it's worth, I came away with a completely positive view of Harper's, though maybe I didn't pick up on every word of it.
[+] [-] dillondoyle|4 years ago|reply
Poppies seem to grow really easily in a lot of places. You don't have to be a fancy chemist to just smoke or shoot the gunk.
Here's a typical Vice story on this, big headline, fairly unsatisfying reality lol.
https://video.vice.com/en_uk/video/heroin-holiday-in-the-cze...
[+] [-] NoNotTheDuo|4 years ago|reply
Opium for the Masses: Harvesting... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004URM3DG?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_shar...
[+] [-] galaxyLogic|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neonate|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unixhero|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] blamazon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jugg1es|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gravstar|4 years ago|reply