Regarding Michael Pollan’s New Book This Is Your Mind on Plants
Summary:<p>- In 1997, Michael Pollan wrote an essay, a section of which was originally &quot;about making opium tea from his home-grown poppies and drinking the tea&quot;. He had some &quot;fear that the Drug Enforcement Administration would raid his house and seize his property&quot; if this were published, as he thought it could be viewed as “taunting the government.”<p>- The published version (available at <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wesjones.com&#x2F;pollan1.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wesjones.com&#x2F;pollan1.htm</a> as pointed out by <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27804124" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27804124</a>), under the title &quot;Opium, Made Easy&quot;  in Harper’s Magazine, left out that section.<p>- Pollan&#x27;s new (2021) book &quot;This is Your Mind on Plants&quot; restores that material. (Which, incidentally, involved finding a zip drive, and using LibreOffice to read the old Word document.)<p>- Recently, in a Tim Ferris podcast, Pollan&#x27;s version of the events of 1997 (see <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tim.blog&#x2F;2021&#x2F;06&#x2F;30&#x2F;michael-pollan-this-is-your-mind-on-plants-transcript&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tim.blog&#x2F;2021&#x2F;06&#x2F;30&#x2F;michael-pollan-this-is-your-mind...</a> starting with the phrase &quot;in the ’90s at the height of the drug war&quot;) kind of suggests that the section was left out because of the advice he got from the lawyers of Harper’s Magazine.<p>- (Though he does mention their lawyer saying &quot;you must publish this article for the good of the Republic&quot;, 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.”)<p>- In the posted submission here, John R. &quot;Rick&quot; MacArthur, the president and publisher of Harper&#x27;s Magazine, points out they did their very best to get him to publish it, and it was Michael Pollan who &quot;insisted on withdrawing the passages about making and drinking the tea&quot;.<p>- It concludes with &quot;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.&quot;<p>That&#x27;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&#x27;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.<p>The main disagreement seems to be about Pollan&#x27;s speculation in the podcast:<p>&gt; 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.<p>Here the publisher himself mentions &quot;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&quot;, so the entire thing seems a non-issue to me. All we&#x27;ve left of the disagreement is<p>• the (rich, fearless) publisher encouraging an author in every way possible to publish something controversial,<p>• the (not-so-rich, not-so-fearless) author thinking&#x2F;speculating something along the lines of &quot;it&#x27;s easy for you, but I&#x27;m not so bold as to court controversy; it&#x27;s [not] my cup of tea&quot;.