CEO of $2 Billion Startup Ousted for Taking LSD at Work (bloomberg.com) 230
Marketing startup Iterable dismissed its chief executive officer over violations of company policy, Iterable said in a note to employees on Monday. From a report: The fired CEO, Justin Zhu, said the board's chief reason for ousting him was that he took LSD, an illegal drug in the U.S., before a meeting in 2019. Zhu told Bloomberg he was experimenting by taking a limited amount of the drug, or microdosing, in an effort to boost his focus.
Microdosing for Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
What a miserable way to enjoy drugs.
Legalize it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't criminalize it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, please decriminalize drugs but also: trying to microdose drugs just so you're more creative or whatever in the name of capitalism/profit: how fucking.... dystopian? Sad?
It ain't worth it man, just do a worse job at work or find a new job.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But there are liability issues which is why we mostly no longer drink or smoke at work, and why Biden had to fire the pot users.
More likely they were fired because (a) cannabis is still illegal at the federal level and (b) you can't get a security clearance if you have recent usage -- the latter being pretty much a requirement for working in many (most?) jobs at the White House.
Re: (Score:3)
And the security issue is:
because it is illegal,
it makes you vulnerable to blackmailing.
What would be if it was legal?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs should be legal.
All drugs or just some drugs?
Let's take this to its logical conclusion, say fentanyl. You are saying fentanyl, a substance that is crazy dangerous and addicitive and deadly, should be just another thing anybody can put in their Amazon shopping cart?
Re: Legalize it. (Score:2)
Fentanyl is only more dangerous because street supply is unreliable. If you could buy it from a pharmacy in co trolled quantities it would be the same as heroin. Addicts could still od, but that is a problem better addressed with tx rather than prohibition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> Drugs should be legal.
>> All drugs or just some drugs?
Moot question: some drugs are *already* legal.
Even accepting you are not talking about prescription drugs, alcohol and tobacco are drugs and are already legal like in "another thing anybody can put in their Amazon shopping cart".
Re: (Score:3)
Worth it implies some great cost. What would be the cost involved here in at least trying it, other than lol getting fired I guess, but that doesn't seem to be your issue.
I generally ignore people who rail against capitalism because I find them to largely be morons, but I'm just curious what you think the issue is? Is "enjoying drugs" mutually exclusive with something like micro-dosing (whether or not it works) to perform better at work? Is there some hidden huge cost to micro-dosing and hence "drugs are b
Re:Legalize it. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm replying up here to comment at a place people will read when skimming the page, sorry it isn't related to your own answer.
I notice most commenters here have no idea what "microdosing" means. Microdosing means taking an extremely small amount of a drug that would otherwise have psychotropic effects. It's taken at such a low dosage, think a thousandth or less of the amount that'd be needed for one to get high, that there's no psychotropic effect at all. Rather, the amount is so small that what activates is the medicinal effect of the drug. In fact, this is no different from purchasing, let's say, a cold medicine at a drugstore. The drug you purchase is a "microdosage" of whatever it contains, as a "full dosage" would have very weird effects, up to and including that of killing you.
So, there's been a lot of research over the last few years on the effects of different microdosages of several psychotropic drugs, including LSD. It has been observed to cause effects such as enhancing attention and temporarily increasing one's learning ability, with no perceived ill effects and, more importantly, no psychotropic effect at all at such low dosages. And there are pharmaceutical companies who most definitely want to commercialize these ultra low dosages as a safe learning enhancing drug for students. They only don't do so because LSD is still forbidden all around no matter the dosage, as the laws have no nuance to them.
So, what this CEO did was to take a drug that happens to have LSD as its active ingredient, but that doesn't work for one to get high at all, and much less for one to go on a trip. And he was fired because of that very traditional, very moronic US cultural principle called "zero tolerance". That's all there is to it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not for or against microdosing. But I'm suspicious of research. Are you talking about real research or trying it and reporting anecdotal effects? If there is research I want to read it.
Re: (Score:2)
Then google for LSD research in Switzerland.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you talking about real research or trying it and reporting anecdotal effects?
Real research. Here are two papers, one analyzing self-reporting, the other involving measurements during tasks:
* Yanakieva, S., Polychroni, N., Family, N. et al. The effects of microdose LSD on time perception: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Psychopharmacology 236, 1159–1170 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-018-5119-x [doi.org]
* Polito V, Stevenson RJ (2019) A systematic study of microdosing psychedelics. PLoS ONE 14(2): e0211023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211023 [doi.org]
You can
Re: (Score:2)
If you decriminalize drugs I want no taxpayer money going to addiction centers.. Also, no taxpayer funded needle giveaways and no more Narcan.
As Christians would say, they don't want their tax dollars going to support abortion clinics even though those clinics provide an abundance of health related services such as basic checkups for pregnant women, I don't my tax dollars going to backstop people who know more than the experts when it comes to drug use and its effe
Re: (Score:3)
What if the money to fund addiction centers comes exclusively from taxes on legal recreational drugs?
Re:Legalize it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's see:
Free needles for the life of a junkie - $100
HIV/Hepatitis treatment caught from shared needles - $180,000
Yep, that sure would be a great deal for taxpayers. /s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Free needles for the life of a junkie - $100
HIV/Hepatitis treatment caught from shared needles - $180,000
Yep, that sure would be a great deal for taxpayers.
If they can afford drugs, they can afford treatment. Can't afford treatment? Don't do drugs.
But let's not have personal responsibility get in the way. Just keep making excuses.
Re: (Score:3)
I note that the majority of health costs in society come from poor diet associated obesity, diabetes, heart disease and stroke. The remainder is made up by the harm that alcohol causes. The cost of other recreational drug use is lost in the noise. Fix your diet and your legal drug use before you start pointing at squirrels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Slack is probably amoung the first 1000 reasons at place 990 or so ...
Oh come on, Slack is not so bad that you have to take drugs. Teams on the other hand ...
Re:Legalize it. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they can afford drugs, they can afford treatment. Can't afford treatment? Don't do drugs.
This has been studied by economists. The serious ones, not the ideological ones. To sum up a long argument: poor person who would need about $100/month to keep up with their addiction in a fully deregulated market, $100 that, worst case, could come from public funds, needs $1,000 when drugs are illegal, and since they cannot get jobs for all the reasons we know, they need to steal $5,000/month worth of stuff so as to obtain those $1,000 from stolen goods resellers. Then they're caught, jailed, and sent to prison, where taxpayers spend $3,000/month for their upkeep. The cost-benefit analysis there is clear: it's much cheaper to spend $100 on them than $3,000 (prison) to $5,000 (crime).
As for why they use drugs, this has been exhaustively studied too by psychologists and specialists in other medical areas. The current understanding is that drug use is a mechanism the brain uses to avoid suicidal ideation, which in turn arises from lack of social fulfillment (no community integration, no life meaning, no good peer environment, etc.). When those conditions are lacking and this triggers suicidal ideation, the brain begins craving drugs to fill the void. Once those conditions are met, the brain turns off the craving for drugs. This is why most people who took morphin-based drugs during months-long hospital recovery don't develop addiction despite being exposed to them constantly, while someone else can become addicted on first try. And when neither those conditions are met, nor drugs are available, suicidal ideation increases leading to increases in the number of suicides.
Hence, the actual long term solution is to provide a better environment for people so their brains don't enable drug craving, and turn it off when it's active. And the cost-effective short-term solution is to provide drugs to those whose anti-suicidal drug-craving is turned on while the work need to shut it down is developed.
Anything other than this is based in neither economics nor medical science, but on arbitrary moral codes that are, for the most part, wishful thinking.
Re: (Score:3)
..the current understanding is that drug use is a mechanism the brain uses to avoid suicidal ideation, which in turn arises from lack of social fulfillment (no community integration, no life meaning, no good peer environment, etc.)....
I think you meant drug addiction. I use drugs and I fall under none of your criteria. I like drugs, including alcohol, and I can assure you it is not a mechanism to avoid anything. It is a pleasant way to spend some time.
Re: Legalize it. (Score:2)
You're right, thanks for the correction. Indeed, when the brain addiction switch is off one can use drugs for entertainment purposes with almost no risk of developing a psychological addiction.
Re: (Score:3)
You know that logic and reason are the first things to go out the door when you are chemically addicted to something, right?
Junkies aren't going to say "you know what, I really enjoy firing dope, but my checking account is looking a little bare so I'm going to take a couple weeks off." No, they're going to go chop down a street lamp or a highway guard rail or something and try to sell it at a metal recycler in order to get another fix.
Logic and reason need not apply to someone that is addicted and doesn't
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
So each person now junkie [sic]
So every person who uses drugs is automatically and immediately an addict? Really? Did your preacher tell you that, or what?
Rarely have high functioning junkies who can maintain a job
I guess that's going to depend on what you consider a "junky". If every recreational drug user is a junky, as your prior statement implies, then you're ridiculously wrong. The majority of people that you know use recreational drugs of one type or another, even though you may not realize it. For myself, I've done a dizzying array of drugs, from prescription pharmaceuticals to mushr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Legalize it. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And I'd choose the opposite.
Because numbers are numbers.
We've got nowhere near enough jobs to employ everyone, and productivity plenty high enough to not need to employ everyone. Poor people steal shit and generally make life worse, which means just letting people be poor isn't really beneficial to everyone else. If it's cheaper to house them and keep them occupied, I'm all for that. It's better for me. Better for my wallet.
But I'm not some arrogant asshole who thinks I should dictate how others live their
Re: (Score:2)
If drugs are legalized, then addiction is extremely rare.
And your standpoint shows: you are not a christian anyway.
I don't my tax dollars going to backstop people who know more than the experts when it comes to drug use and its effects.
You do not need to be an expert. Being a user is expert enough. Most experts are ex or still current users, who do not want to spoil the option to get a lot of money: and the drug
There is no real expert in the field who was not once a user, or still is. Or is related to one
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Legalize it. (Score:2)
If your job is ceo of a $2b startup you are probably feeling pretty actualized.
Microdosing also serves to reduce anxiety and depression and can make a lousy job more tolerable, even enjoyable (and help lead to better jobs).
Re:Microdosing for Capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
What a miserable way to enjoy drugs.
Not so sure popping back Ritalin like candy to get your "higher" education, is any better.
From what I understand, microdosing does offer some kind of actual or perceived focus benefit. I'm guessing it happens when you're just "buzzed" and not completely mentally fried on the drug.
And quite frankly, firing him for something he experimented with over 2 years ago? I wonder how many prescription pill poppers and booze hounds are in positions of leadership today, public and private, and no one seems to question that behavior, whether it affects work or not. With the FDA considering ecstasy (MDMA) as a treatment for PTSD, maybe we need to take the stick out of our collective asses when it comes to these kinds of drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so sure popping back Ritalin like candy to get your "higher" education, is any better.
From what I understand, microdosing does offer some kind of actual or perceived focus benefit. I'm guessing it happens when you're just "buzzed" and not completely mentally fried on the drug.
Multiple things can be bad at the same time, yes, haha.
And yeah I understand (and have much experience with the concept of) microdosing. Doing so just so you're more creative or happy or getting some sort of benefit just for WORK is the depressing part. Just do a worse job at your job, it doesn't matter that much. They're perverting something fun/theraputic like LSD into some "productivity hack" because we're not allowed to enjoy anything in this world unless it can be used to make a profit eventually.
Re: (Score:3)
Just do a worse job at your job, it doesn't matter that much.
?!?!
...we're not allowed to enjoy anything in this world unless it can be used to make a profit eventually.
You seem to have a really backwards, and quite sad, view of work. Making a profession out of something doesn't have to be an unfulfilling slog with an obsession on profit margins.
You do what you do to make a living & maintain a lifestyle that makes you happy. Feeling fulfilled in what you do is part of that lifestyle.
You'll spend a large portion of your life working. If your profession doesn't bring you satisfaction, then look for something that does. Simply throwing your hands up in the air &
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, but its naïve to think that everyone can find creative and fun things to do when forced to perform tasks for 40 hours a week just to stave off starvation and homelessness. Especially when you have to compete with people who are prepared to work 80 hours a week and take mind-altering drugs to do it 'better'.
There's also the issue that if everyone decided they were only going to work in life affirming jobs based on their most beloved activities, then the whole capitalist debt fuelled system wi
Re:Microdosing for Capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
My issue is... since when is LSD considered a focus-enhancing drug? Some of my friends used it regularly when I was in school, and I was turned off to the concept when I learned that you can't focus on a task when high on LSD, and I was always obsessed with being productive and accomplishing things.
(The only non-prescription drug I have an interest in trying at some point as a consequence is kava... which is actually said to increase focus)
Re:Microdosing for Capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
My issue is... since when is LSD considered a focus-enhancing drug? Some of my friends used it regularly when I was in school, and I was turned off to the concept when I learned that you can't focus on a task when high on LSD, ...
Guessing your friends were taking more than micro-dose amounts ...
Re: (Score:2)
I did enjoy being around them when they were using it. I'd stare at them out of the corner of my eye, change the speed of my speech, etc to try to mess with them ;)
Re:Microdosing for Capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
My issue is... since when is LSD considered a focus-enhancing drug?
Since research has shown that extremely low doses (AKA microdosing) have different effects that dosing for recreational purposes.
For instance this recent research,
Low dose of LSD (5 and 20 mcg) enhances sustained attention.
Low dose of LSD (20 mcg) reduces speed of information processing.
Low dose of LSD affects mood states in positive directions (5, 10 and 20 mcg).
Low dose of LSD increased anxiety (5 and 20 mcg) and confusion (20 mcg).
Most apparent affects are present following 20 mcg of LSD.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Most drugs can have significantly different effects depending on the dosing.
Re: (Score:2)
I've stopped believing studies with 24 participants. The replication crisis was built on studies like that one. The conclusions of the study might be true, or they might be just another case like intranasal oxytocin - piles and piles of studies [wiley.com] with positive results which add up to nothing [columbia.edu].
I'm not saying it's guaranteed to not be true, just that it's not proven. We should probably make the drug legal so that we can do proper studies on it.
Re: (Score:2)
On your way up, you'd be absolutely amazed at how well you can focus. Well, that's not quite right. It's like you can effectively pay attention to more things at once.
I remember playing World 8-2 in Super Mario Bros. and doing better than I ever had, easily getting through the very difficult level. In Tetris, I didn't need to explicitly look over at the next block. I was aware for the entirety of the play field and things surrounding it. It was like I could focus on the whole screen, not just one part
Re:Microdosing for Capitalism (Score:4, Informative)
My issue is... since when is LSD considered a focus-enhancing drug?
You must have missed the Slashdot story [slashdot.org] about it back in 2015.
Re: (Score:2)
Many musicians experienced with LSD would disagree with the idea that you can't focus on a task when high.
Re: (Score:2)
My issue is... since when is LSD considered a focus-enhancing drug? Some of my friends used it regularly when I was in school, and I was turned off to the concept when I learned that you can't focus on a task when high on LSD, and I was always obsessed with being productive and accomplishing things.
(The only non-prescription drug I have an interest in trying at some point as a consequence is kava... which is actually said to increase focus)
Not that I'm coming from experience here, but I believe the answer to your question, lies in the dosing.
As in microdosing.
Microdose alcohol? Yeah, you can probably concentrate pretty well. Get high-school drunk on it? Not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing is: you can not really "micro dose" on LSD.
The minimal dose that already has an effect is so absurd low.
Imagine a "normal dose", dilute it in a soup spoon of water, drop it on Blotting paper.
Cut a 1mm x 1mm piece of it and eat it. You already have psychedelic effects.
Re: (Score:2)
And quite frankly, firing him for something he experimented with over 2 years ago?
Sounds like maybe they wanted to get rid of him and they found this excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
This, and if it's the best excuse they could come up with then he must've done a stellar job.
Re: (Score:3)
Or DO screw up and then still collect a just slightly smaller shitload of money anyway! Way more than a hardworking plebian could make in a lifetime of flawless work.
Re: (Score:2)
You would rather need to turn a source of pleasure into a source of enhancing your performance at work? That's really depressing there man :(
Take some time for yourself instead of worrying about making the numbers go up.
If it works, you're a genius (Score:5, Interesting)
However, if you screw up and the company doesn't go so well, all of a sudden it's the reason you are incompetent and need to be fired. Notably, nobody had a problem with Adam Neumann smoking tons of weed on the job until his general sociopathy and mismanagement of the company became clear. Then, he's a stupid pothead..but before then he was a visionary worthy of billions in investment.
That said I don't think microdosing is a good idea in general, but I know at least two CEOs whose companies have gone public in the last couple years who were microdosing, didn't seem to be a problem because they were very successful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally speaking when it comes to drug use by CEOs and other tech leaders, if it works and the company grows they are hailed as a genius. Take Steve Jobs for example, who tried to find Neem Karori Baba of Be Here Now fame in the 60s, and took plenty of acid while creating the idea for the original Mac. Many, many others have a history of drug use who are now considered titans of tech.
However, if you screw up and the company doesn't go so well, all of a sudden it's the reason you are incompetent and need to be fired. Notably, nobody had a problem with Adam Neumann smoking tons of weed on the job until his general sociopathy and mismanagement of the company became clear. Then, he's a stupid pothead..but before then he was a visionary worthy of billions in investment.
That said I don't think microdosing is a good idea in general, but I know at least two CEOs whose companies have gone public in the last couple years who were microdosing, didn't seem to be a problem because they were very successful.
Isn't that the American style for everything though? As long as you are successful everything is fine, as long as you make money you can do no wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking when it comes to drug use by CEOs and other tech leaders, if it works and the company grows they are hailed as a genius. Take Steve Jobs for example, who tried to find Neem Karori Baba of Be Here Now fame in the 60s, and took plenty of acid while creating the idea for the original Mac. Many, many others have a history of drug use who are now considered titans of tech.
However, if you screw up and the company doesn't go so well, all of a sudden it's the reason you are incompetent and need to be fired. Notably, nobody had a problem with Adam Neumann smoking tons of weed on the job until his general sociopathy and mismanagement of the company became clear. Then, he's a stupid pothead..but before then he was a visionary worthy of billions in investment.
That said I don't think microdosing is a good idea in general, but I know at least two CEOs whose companies have gone public in the last couple years who were microdosing, didn't seem to be a problem because they were very successful.
Isn't that the American style for everything though? As long as you are successful everything is fine, as long as you make money you can do no wrong.
It is human, not simply American, to overlook faults in others while they benefit you.
Re: (Score:3)
Odd, since the idea for the original Mac was from Jef Raskin.
Re:If it works, you're a genius (Score:4, Informative)
The reality distortion field started with acid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If it works, you're a genius (Score:5, Interesting)
Jobs didn't create any particular special idea for the Apple 2. It only became a breakthrough success because Visicalc, the first spreadsheet, ran only on the Apple 2 for about the first year.
Businessmen would go into the computer store and say they 'needed a Visicalc' and walk out with an Apple 2. It was this killer app that made Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Raskin's mac was very little like what came out, which was an less expensive Lisa.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
AFAIK this guy took a small dose of acid once during a meeting in 2019 and they're getting around to firing him now?
Getting around to? So, I guess a single incident that happened two years ago does NOT qualify for a let-it-fucking-go-already judgement call then?
Yes, I would probably question why he took it two years ago, and question his attitude and dependency on drugs now to ensure it's not going to affect future performance, but you seem to think he's guilty of a crime worse than sex trafficking.
Remember when every executive boardroom came stocked with a bar? The three-martini business lunch? Those 1950s and 60s bu
Re: (Score:2)
Although a hefty dose of acid might make those meetings a frack of a lot more entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally speaking when it comes to drug use by CEOs and other tech leaders, if it works and the company grows they are hailed as a genius. Take Steve Jobs for example, who tried to find Neem Karori Baba of Be Here Now fame in the 60s, and took plenty of acid while creating the idea for the original Mac. Many, many others have a history of drug use who are now considered titans of tech.
However, if you screw up and the company doesn't go so well, all of a sudden it's the reason you are incompetent and need to be fired. Notably, nobody had a problem with Adam Neumann smoking tons of weed on the job until his general sociopathy and mismanagement of the company became clear. Then, he's a stupid pothead..but before then he was a visionary worthy of billions in investment.
That said I don't think microdosing is a good idea in general, but I know at least two CEOs whose companies have gone public in the last couple years who were microdosing, didn't seem to be a problem because they were very successful.
I would say this is the most cyberpunk thing I've heard of in the last few years, except usually in the dystopias, it's not the megacorps that are using drugs to get ahead. It's their adversaries.
Re: (Score:3)
That said I don't think microdosing is a good idea in general, but I know at least two CEOs whose companies have gone public in the last couple years who were microdosing, didn't seem to be a problem because they were very successful.
If the mere ancient history of taking drugs is enough to get you fired, (just ask Biden's now-unemployed staffers), then I struggle to define that as "success". As CEO, you're one bad quarter away from ancient shit being dredged up to abuse, and ultimately oust you from the company.
In other words, being worried about what an otherwise successful CEO did two years ago before a meeting, is nothing more than cancel culture bullshit.
If he still has a drug problem that's affecting performance, then deal with i
Re: (Score:2)
Today we have Larry Ellison and Peter Thiel, who are not subject to "can
Re: (Score:3)
I respect your sentiment, but I think this predates "cancel culture," at least as it is commonly understood today. Drug use is one of many character traits used historically in America and elsewhere to impeach the credibility of a person and label them as morally corrupt, untrustworthy and incompetent.
Microdosing is probably far more common than you think. Firing a tech CEO for that, is akin to expelling a college student from campus for abusing Ritalin.
In the past, CEOs have been taken down by years-old reports of their frequenting of prostitutes, or of engaging in homosexual acts.
Today we have Larry Ellison and Peter Thiel, who are not subject to "cancellation" for these behaviors respectively.
Uh, neither are lawmakers. The only point you've made here, is some people are above the law, and well above being affected by cancel culture. Hardly a new concept, no matter the crime. And CEOs admit to taking drugs openly. Steve Jobs is probably one of the most infamous examples, but there are plenty more. There were those who wanted Elon Musk fir
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, is that wrong? (Score:2)
You mean us 1% are not allowed to ignore the drug laws?
My bad.
Extra sarcasm starts here ...
I will stop doing that. At least until we pay our GOP senators to legalize it. At least in one state. So us 1% can fly there whenever we want and do it, while the plebes are stuck at home.
You know it's not the glory days. (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in the glory days of start-ups, the CEO would be openly bragging about dropping acid on the job.
Might be why tech has turned to shit in the last ten, fifteen years or so. Too many uptight pseudo-Mormons consuming nothing but kale smoothies and their own farts.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the glory days of start-ups, the CEO would be openly bragging about dropping acid on the job.
And that's probably still far more true today than you assume.
The "glory days" for this company, was the first 5-7 years. Once you start using the word "billions" to describe your valuation, you should know those days are over, and the IPO spotlight is on you.
At that point, fucking up on the job is kind of like talking major shit before the check is signed. Not smart.
Discretion? (Score:3)
So how did they find out? Doesn't really say in the article, but my guess is the guy was a typical young narcissist and just had to tell everyone what he was doing?
That said, if a company I co-founded fired me and I held sufficient stock and/or money to burn the company to the ground I would certainly do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Especially if microdosing, there's no obvious way to tell if someone has taken acid. He must have been unable to resist talking about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Especially if microdosing, there's no obvious way to tell if someone has taken acid...
So, we are really struggling, to determine if someone is impaired, through microdosing? Ever think people might really struggle with firing a CEO then?
No, I'm not defending drugs in the workplace. I'm more making people question what in the ACTUAL fuck the problem is here. It's bad enough that a CEO of a successful company got fired over an incident that happened years ago.
Smacks of cancel culture bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
So how did they find out? Doesn't really say in the article, but my guess is the guy was a typical young narcissist and just had to tell everyone what he was doing?
You may be right, but I'm more betting disgruntled employee/former employee.
Who else is going to dredge up some dirt on the CEO that's ancient history at this point.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or he was past a threshold dose (perhaps by accident) and weird af at the meeting and when they investigated they found out.
Seems quite possible that someone misjudged "micro" or pushed it a little too far.
Re: (Score:3)
Microdosing doesn't induce hallucinations or a high. It simply lightly activates brain pathways thought to facilitate creative thinking. This is a hitjob. Period.
This was not a controlled environment (prescription/overseen), and the only reason they're saying "microdosing" is because that's apparently what they're using for the story. He was trying to do it on the sly. It's probably directly against company policy, specifically because...
He's the CEO. It's an enormous liability for a CEO to be doing things that the company oversight doesn't expect, especially when it comes to corporate officers. Not to mention, having any sort of success performing that kind of acti
Re: This is BS (Score:2)
Your last sentence summarizes the main body of your post quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
Microdosing doesn't induce hallucinations or a high. It simply lightly activates brain pathways thought to facilitate creative thinking. This is a hitjob. Period.
This was not a controlled environment (prescription/overseen), and the only reason they're saying "microdosing" is because that's apparently what they're using for the story. He was trying to do it on the sly. It's probably directly against company policy, specifically because...
He's the CEO. It's an enormous liability for a CEO to be doing things that the company oversight doesn't expect, especially when it comes to corporate officers. Not to mention, having any sort of success performing that kind of action is not predictably reproducible. It's not OTC, it's not regulated, it's not prescription - suppose he got a bad batch or started more heavily dosing and ended up dropping his pants and crapping the table while entertaining potential clients/financers at dinner? It's also illegal, which gives leverage over him for blackmail purposes to anyone who knew about it, especially his connections for the drugs in the first place. I certainly wouldn't be happy if it was my livelihood or investment at stake.
This is lunatic crazy shit, period.
Yeah, the wording makes me think that even if he planned on "microdosing" he actually went into that meeting "tripping balls".
Though even then I don't think it's the full story, FTA emphasis added:
The fired CEO, Justin Zhu, said the board’s chief reason for ousting him was that he took LSD, an illegal drug in the U.S., before a meeting in 2019.
It seems unlikely that the straw the broke the camel's back happened in 2019. There was probably other stuff that's going on and he just decided to mange the st
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is BS (Score:2)
He got fired for being a pussy and not taking a full dose. CEOs need to be decisive.
Don't be a pussy. Macro-dosing only.
Re:This is BS (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't wait for CEOs to be ousted for speeding too. They're a menace on the road.
Microfail (Score:5, Funny)
I tried to use microdosing to design a microchannel architecture for microservices at Microsoft. In the end I simply ended up with a microdick.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm microdosing right now (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
They were insulted.... (Score:5, Funny)
Puritanical Capitalism (Score:2)
His firing is motivated by the same censorial impulse which fueled Puritanism; If I do not understand or agree with it then ban it and punish those who disagree. The firings are justified as violations of corporate policy, but it is the overly-restrictive ideologues who are writing those policies.
The modern-day corporate puritans substitute their personal interests for legitimate goals of the corporations. Customers, investors and employees are the stakeholders whose interests are the legitimate concerns
Please explain "$2 Billion Startup" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Who gives a "Startup" company 2,000,000,000 USD to start with?
Not sure, but you're probably gonna want to be microdosing on acid when you hear that answer...
this shit makes me sad (Score:2)
Why are you taking drugs and fucking up your life, but not taking enough to get fucked up?!?!!? You're doing this all wrong!! Didn't anyone teach you how to navigate psychedelics?!?
So it took 2 years to fire him for a violation? (Score:3)
Just wondering why it took 2 years to fire him for violations of the drug policy...
That said most likely - they didn't like him as CEO anymore and looked back on his record to find something that could be used to justify firing him. Easier to say drug addict than simply - is not meeting expectations