jamie said:
Yup, the dude is mostly worth ignoring...showed up like yesterday and keeps saying things like that.
Agreed.
downwardsfromzero said:
The NY Times article appears to be paywalled and the site won't let me read it. I'd like to know what Pollan's arguments are.
ommani said:
self-appointed, psychedelic expert, Michael Pollan
Pollan is best known for his books that explore the socio-cultural impacts of food, such as The Botany of Desire and The Omnivore's Dilemma.
To what extent would you say he has strayed outside his field here? And was his 2018 book,
How to Change Your Mind, simply jumping on the bandwagon?
Before I get into my thoughts about Michael Pollan, I just want to say that I find the topic of habitual caffeine use to be worth talking about and appreciate you bringing it up, even if it is in the context of a writer I don't particularly care for.
I see what you're saying about Michael Pollan arguably staying within his field in terms of being a journalist who writes about the interaction of people and plants. However, I don't think that makes him an expert on psychedelics (regardless of his 2018 book), which he seems to present himself as, given all the podcast interviews and speaking events in which he focuses on the topic.
People I consider experts in the field like Kathleen Harrison, Dennis McKenna, and Paul Stamets have been involved with psychedelics for decades, regardless of the social, academic, and medical acceptance, thereof. Michael Pollan, on the other hand, despite appearing to be around the same age as the people I mentioned, just got involved with psychedelics in the past few years, as the research and corresponding social respectability of psychedelics has been ramping up. So yes, I do think of him as an opportunist who has jumped on the bandwagon that he is partially responsible for creating.
Here are some quotes from the article. Of particular annoyance to me is that after openly writing about taking mushrooms on his own and hiding from his neighbors by the side of the road, he goes on to argue against decimalization. The implication of this double standard is that it's ok for an old, respectable, white guy like Michael Pollan to trip on mushrooms to his heart's content, but society at large is not ready to enjoy such freedoms. He also uses the example of traditional psychedelic use to argue against decriminalization, which strikes me as being disingenuous given how little information there is in his book (How To Change Your Mind) about the traditional use of psychedelics.
"Only a few days ago, millions of Americans probably had never heard of psilocybin, the active agent in psychedelic mushrooms, but thanks to Denver, it is about to get its moment in the political sun. On Tuesday, the city’s voters surprised everyone by narrowly approving a ballot initiative that effectively decriminalizes psilocybin, making its possession, use or personal cultivation a low-priority crime... For the first time since psychedelics were broadly banned under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, we’re about to have a national debate about the place of psilocybin in our society. Debate is always a good thing, but I worry that we’re not quite ready for this one."
"No one should ever be arrested or go to jail for the possession or cultivation of any kind of mushroom — it would be disingenuous for me to say otherwise, since I have possessed, used and grown psilocybin myself. Like many others, I was inspired to do so by the recent renaissance of research into psychedelics, including psilocybin."
^ This seems like a weird contradiction, given that this article is in opposition to the decriminalization of mushrooms that passed in Denver (the title of the article/op-ed is Michael Pollan: Not So Fast on Psychedelic Mushrooms).
"I look forward to the day when psychedelic medicines like psilocybin, having proven their safety and efficacy in F.D.A.-approved trials, will take their legal place in society, not only in mental health care but in the lives of people dealing with garden-variety unhappiness or interested in spiritual exploration and personal growth. My worry is that ballot initiatives may not be the smartest way to get there. We still have a lot to learn about the immense power and potential risk of these molecules, not to mention the consequences of unrestricted use. It would be a shame if the public is pushed to make premature decisions about psychedelics before the researchers have completed their work."
^ Michael Pollan may still have a lot to learn, but I daresay that his lack of knowledge and experience with psychedelics is not a universal phenomenon.
"Whether in pre-Conquest South or Central America (where psilocybin has been used for centuries), or Ancient Greece, psychedelic substances were always approached with deliberateness and care. For the most part, the substances were not taken alone but usually in a group under the direction of an elder or shaman familiar with the mental territory, and they were used only on certain occasions, surrounded by ritual and with a clear intention. There was nothing casual about it."
^ Michael Pollan may be a decent journalist and writer, but he is definitely not an expert on the history of psychedelics, nor is he an ethnobotanist (like Kathleen Harrison) with intimate, first hand knowledge of how psychedelics are used in traditional cultures. In effect, the above statement strikes me as a sweeping generalization that serves to reinforce what I find to be the patronizing tone of the article.
I realize that the psymposia podcast isn't everyone's cup of tea, but this episode, which breaks down the Michael Pollan op-ed in question is less contentious than others, and is worth listening to, in my opinion...
#1 – We Hope Michael Pollan Changes His Mind
