The Journal reported executives at SpaceX worried Elon Musk was on drugs after an “unhinged” all-hands meeting in which he slurred and rambled.

  • Uglyhead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    217
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is the way he’s always been and it’s only getting worse.

    Employees have always had to manage him not the other way around; a perpetual petulant toddler banging his hands on the table; ruining everything he touches with his Reverse-Midas-Touch so they keep him at bay.

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      99
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is increasingly the characterization of so many rich and powerful people.

      Soooo weird…

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        62
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        If you have money, then in the business world you have intrinsic value.

        When you have enough, you reach the tipping point where it doesn’t just need to be the only thing you provide, but it outweighs others ways you hurt the business.

        The less your ideas are useful and the more money you hoard, the faster it changes.

        It can go quickly downhill when the CEOs wealth is tied to stock price.

        And ends disastrously when they go somewhere that workers aren’t used to them. Because the CEO was never told they used to be babysat just for their money, they legit believe they’re a genius

        • psud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s impressive then that the starship stack is stainless steel not carbon. Musk planned a giant carbon fibre rocket. The engineers he hired got him to change size and change material

      • Blackout@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        10 months ago

        You have to think who gets that wealthy and is like “Let’s go to work!” You have to be psychotic to have more wealth than you can ever spend and not go fuck off somewhere and enjoy it. I would never go back to a job even if I was running the place, I’d just do whatever I wanted to do for the rest of my life.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I enjoy it, but I prefer calling him Terrence Howard because he’s a fake iron man who is going to be replaced.

          • Uglyhead@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            10 months ago

            Mr. “If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what’s the square root of two? Should be one, but we’re told it’s two, and that cannot be.” Terryology Howard?

            Refuting thousands of years of knowledge and science and saying we’ve, ‘been doing math wrong this whole time’ takes a whole nutter level of nutter.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              See? He and Elon need to get together and compare science notes. Imagine the new Tesla/SpaceX Cyber Rocket Truck those two could come up with together!

  • Buffaloaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    132
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    At SpaceX, where illicit drug use could jeopardize the billions of dollars of government contracts enjoyed by the defense contractor due to federal regulations, The Journal’s reports of Musk’s drug use put at risk nearly $1 trillion in assets held by investors, about 13,000 jobs, and the future of the US space program.

    And I thought Twitter was going to be his biggest fuck up.

    • derphurr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t think Twitter was a fuck up. It’s likely he had $20B or something insane in cap gains (maybe from selling Tesla shares or other investments).

      He took Twitter private sold it on paper to same private shareholders, now can claim $17B or whatever it is in losses. Now he pays nothing in taxes, has one of the largest Internet mouthpieces he can use to sway elections, etc. The only people who took losses are banks he used to swing purchase and the twitter landlord he is refusing to pay.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        I mean, it single-handedly ruined everyone’s understanding of who he is and what he can do in the most humiliating ways imaginable. But if you want to spin it as a tax write off supermove, okay. It can be two things I guess.

  • TurtleJoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    We can excuse the racism, the transphobia, and the antisemitism, but we draw the line at drugs!

    • EmergMemeHologram@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      10 months ago

      That can lose them their security clearance and government contracts, so kind of a big deal.

      The racism and transphobia and everything else can be ignored because it doesn’t affect their bottom line in the society we live in.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Don’t you see? All of those other things were BECAUSE of the drugs! It’s exactly like what happened to Roseanne and her Ambiens!

      • xenoclast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        He’s always been a racist, homophobic, sociopathic capitalist. Aligning with fascists is the trajectory of most like him. The drugs just make it more obvious…

        (Yes is read the /s but I still felt an opportunity to get a jab in because fuck this guy)

    • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Oh, they’re probably okay with certain drugs, but slurring speech indicates he’s taking the wrong kind.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    110
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    with one executive describing the event to the outlet as “nonsensical,” “unhinged” and “cringeworthy.”

    This is different from normal?

    Also:

    SpaceX also began cracking down on illegal substances at the company by bringing in drug-sniffing dogs, sources told The Journal.

    How much do you want to bet those dogs are never allowed up in the executive suites?

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      73
      ·
      10 months ago

      What kind of company has such a bad drug problem that they need to bring in dogs to find it? Absolutely ridiculous.

        • Hackerman_uwu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          10 months ago

          In normal corporate environments I’ve seen people abuse everything from codeine headache tablets to crystal meth.

          Not defending Edolf Twitler, I’m just saying it’s not unusual for these environments to be so toxic that people look for ways to manage.

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            10 months ago

            I don’t find the drug use abnormal so much as them bringing in drug sniffing dogs to catch it rather than dealing with it on an individual basis.

            • Optional@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              Probably less for actually finding drugs than for checking a tickbox on an insurance form for “taking measures to combat drugs” or something. It’s probably just Ricky from HR’s dobie-doodle mix.

      • elbucho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t think it’s that they had such a rampant drug use problem. I think it’s just that they wanted to appease Uncle Sam so they could keep sucking on that taxpayer teat. Uncle Sam’s a bit of a stickler about such things, especially when it comes to people who build rocket ships.

    • Shadywack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well the smart money can only go inverse, and tripling down with a “I’ll see your bet and raise it 500%” that a drug dog absolutely will find a shit ton of drugs in the executive areas. I’d take out the largest loan I possibly could, then go to a loan shark and do a blood contract, and absolutely muster every possible cent I possibly could after whoring my own ass out, on THAT bet.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t know, this might make a few kids skip taking drugs. Maybe his cringeworthyness is finally doing something good.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    … Musk’s drug use, which includes LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, and ketamine, …

    Explains…soooo much. Still an asshole, though.

  • qooqie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s news sure but is anyone thinking it’s groundbreaking news that Elon musk might be on drugs most of the time?

      • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        He was on Rogan smoking a joint. Not that weed is a particularly harmful drug but I bet you would catch 0 other CEOs doing it so brazenly.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        No. We’re saying the SpaceX board is not on enough of them. Because they’re going to light up the whole business by leaving him in place rather than figuring out what it’s going to take to launch him into the sun. I mean remove him.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    The guy was a decent salesman, heavilly empowered by daddy’s money and connections, who had a bit of luck, even though he only had one kind of salesmanship technique - the Techbro Brew: heavy on selling “high-tech” and “innovation” as inherently good and always trumphing other considerations - and kept walking the grey legal area between lies, exageration and Fraud.

    However he seems to have started believing his own schtick that he’s a special golden boy whose farts smell of roses, and here we are now.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      10 months ago

      Know this: having that amount of money is deeply not normal. None of us could do it. We’d save people. We’d build things that helped instead of giant toys. Billionaires are a type of sociopathy. And this guy’s got it bad.

      100% tax after 999 million. Full stop.

      • Shadywack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        “One tiny step for mankind and one giant leap for me personally” – Jason Alexander during a skit about piece of shit billionaires making dick shaped rockets going out into space.

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The irony of course is Jason, Jerry, Julia, and Larry are all billionaires.

          edit: apparently Jason only has a net worth of 50 mil despite being on the most popular sitcom of all time and the comparative net worths of his colleagues. I guess he got nothing on the back end for syndication. Shitty.

          • nomous@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Julia was rich before Seinfeld even aired.

            Larry and Jerry definitely got paid but I doubt either of them are billionaires.

            edit: She’s the daughter of French-born business magnate Gérard Louis-Dreyfus.

          • Shadywack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            In comparison, that’s absolutely shitty and I agree. On the other hand I look at his net worth though and it reminds me of a recent article about Tesla’s cofounders, and how out of 5 only two “got rich”. Within that same article the guy with the lowest net worth was still worth 200 million. Jason’s hilarious and I love his work, but at the same time if he “only” is worth 50 mil, congrats to the guy for getting rich anyway.

            Good point though about the irony of it.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Exactly. Musk and Trump are the poster children for why you shouldn’t leave your kids everything if you’re wealthy. It’ll ruin their lives and the lives of their children.

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          Not trying to defend excessive wealth, but Trump and Musk were both ruined by their fathers.

          The regular model for self aware billionaires is to keep your head down. How much do you know about the Johnson and Johnson heirs? Or the Walmart heirs? They know their necks will be on the chopping block is they’re well known and a revolution comes.

      • psud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Musk spent a lot of money trying to teach people that that doesn’t work.

        He’s a billionaire because he owns the majority of Tesla and Tesla is very valuable. He has no taxable income unless he draws a salary or liquidates some of his Tesla shares

        He demonstrated it by liquidating some shares and getting a tax bill

        Billionaire spending money comes from a deal with a bank - the billionaire gets as much credit as they like, the bank is paid back by their estate upon death

    • Ibex0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      However he seems to have started believing his own schtick that he’s a special golden boy whose farts smell of roses, and here we are now.

      Yeah, that’s the problem. Honestly, a lot of people would do this. That’s why corporations are supposed to have checks and balances.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I have a couple of acquaintances that are PayPal Mafia and what I’ve put together from them and anecdotes around the Valley is pretty much spot on what you’ve got here. He’s not special. Life just had a course that worked out for his douche ass.

        • blazeknave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’d typically respond “aren’t they all?” But the MF has more money than God. I really don’t know what to make of him. I think he’s just a legitimate piece of shit incel king edge lord who lost the thread and doesn’t know he’s no longer just a troll. Maybe the daddy issues are so bad he cant see his own power. Why else act like this?

          • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            He grew up as a child of an emrald miner in South Africa under the aparthied regieme.

            Super rich kid in a historically notoriiously dehumanizing society.

            Its like perfect conditions for a narcisistic mental disorder.

            So im not really suprised by his bizzare conservative appeals against poor people, employees, regulators and the like.

            Comic books need villains too.

            • blazeknave@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Nailed it. They always think they’re the victim hero saving us from ourselves. Who needs Kang and Doc Oc when you have jabronis like this guy and orangeman

  • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I will admit, him being on drugs did not occur to me as a possible explanation for his ‘taking tesla private’ tweet that torpeedoed his networth, but having been confronted by it now I am having a hard time not believing it.

    • athos77@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Musk’s drug use, which includes LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, and ketamine, according to people familiar with the matter, is at the center of an extensive new report from The Journal that details how executives at several of the billionaire’s companies have struggled to manage his substance use and erratic behavior.

      • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        33
        ·
        10 months ago

        Just FYI

        According to people familiar with the matter

        Means “We have no source for this and are probably making it up”

        Business Insider is a tabloid shitrag these days

        • athos77@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          10 months ago

          Just FYI, “according to people familiar with the matter” generally means people who are speaking on background and asked to have their identifies protected. I guarantee you that the reporters and their editor(s) know the people involved and have good reason to believe they’re familiar with the situation and are reliable sources of information.

        • stopthatgirl7@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          10 months ago

          This is based on a Wall Street Journal report (which I didn’t link because it’s paywalled), so your strange anger at BI is a wee bit misplaced.

          • Uglyhead@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            10 months ago

            Dude is hanging out in a dedicated misogyny porn community.

            10 to 1 a MuskRat and just angry his man is being talked about badly.

            • renzev@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              “Hey there nice post. Unfortunately, here is some bullshit I dug up from your comment history which clearly demonstrates that you are unworthy of expressing your opinion”

              Not defending that guy, just really wish this type of behavior would just die along with the rest of r*ddit already. Something something ad hominem falacy

              • Uglyhead@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Oh I tend agree, if I was arguing directly against him it would be foul.

                However looking through peoples past comments and where they tend to hang out can infer a lot about the person.

          • Ooops@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            No. Media bullshit is sitting at the core of a lot of today’s problems and the massive polarisation on basically any topic.

            Anger at low level journalism rags and even more at outlets trying to look respectable while actually having a similiar quality (and that definitely includes Business Insider ever since they were bought by the shithole of journalism that is Axel Springer SE) cannot be misplaced at all.

  • sirdorius@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Has there ever been an all-hands meeting where the CEO was not cringeworthy?

    I just assume it’s the minimum amount of yearly cringe you have to endure to stay employed.

  • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    And? Its only a crime when regular people do it, for rich people its just ‘eccentric’

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Until it starts hurting the other rich people- the investors. Eventually, Musk’s erratic behavior will have to be dealt with. He will never be anything but a multibillionaire, but he may not be CEO of his companies much longer at this rate.

    • Mrkawfee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      There’s a world of difference between a micro and a macro dose. You don’t want to be anywhere near work with the latter.

      • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The difference being, with one you get a light, pleasant, happy, drunk adjacent feeling. With the other, you’re sitting on the ground staring into the infinite void of nothingness, head lolled to one side, while your friends dab the back of your neck with a cool towel, hoping you don’t puke and asphyxiate on it.

        • Ferrous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’d argue that once you are feeling effects of the drug, you are no longer micro dosing.

          Micro dosing started out as a way to describe the maximum amount of substance you could take without feeling primary effects.

          • blazeknave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah the whole thing is dumb. Let me eat as many mushrooms as I can without tripping balls so I can kinda work and think I’m a genius. That was hard enough to balance with weed in the office. Real drugs?? Are you fucking kidding me?? Worst case, nothing happens. “Best case,” I lose my career??? No thanks man. Maybe I’ll use them to clear my head on a Friday alone and use the sober new perspective on Monday. During work with no upside??? Nobody has to drive during the day??? End old man rant

              • Zink@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                I know that the rules for spravato (esketamine nasal spray, for depression) include no driving until after you’ve had a full night’s sleep.

                • blazeknave@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I didn’t drive regularly when I was younger and fucked around. But both then and sober old man now, I couldn’t fathom driving within 48 hours of any drugs. Even day after drinking, it’s not safe… if you’re drinking until last call, tomorrow isn’t tomorrow

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              10 months ago

              But as your body builds up resistance you’re gonna have to increase the dose

              Also I imagine it’s like super sugar where people say “a little sweeter would be fine” and keep increasing the dose.

              • Herbal Gamer@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                which is also why the doses need to stay micro; so the body doesn’t percieve it as something worth building resistance to.

              • Uglyhead@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                I definitely don’t want to be anywhere near Level 2 of a mushroom trip when I’m trying to actually function.

                Just keep it nice and low; measure out 3.14g and split it 4 ways; have a quarter piece of Pi and all that cheesy goodness or wotnot.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    10 months ago

    Companies perform drug checks for a reason. People who lead large organizations while regularly getting off on drugs are usually the biggest psychopaths around.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      10 months ago

      The higher up you go, the less likely it is that you’d be tested for drugs. We could empty board rooms if we insisted on drug testing at that level.

      • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes, but I’m not really arguing against that claim. The higher up you go, the more psychopaths you have as well. They can have all the drugs they want, the real work usually doesn’t depend on them, and psychopathy helps them make money if not contribute to society.

    • Shadywack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      10 downvotes on this comment, because they either mis clicked, they’re guilty of the same thing and the truth hurts, or they’re bootlicking scab motherfuckers.

      • thisisnotgoingwell@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Probably because routine mandatory tests are bad, and the comment you replied to is an endorsement to it. It’s a gross violation of your constitutional rights under the 4th amendment. Also, why do you care to make assumptions on why people downvoted if you’re not even making an effort to broaden your views?

        https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/mandatory-drug-testing-public-sector-employees-constitutional

        • Shadywack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          No argument there, I’m not an advocate for drug testing against any intrinsic right as spelled out in the constitution, but there are many situations where companies need some type of enforcement against people who get high and go to work. Industries from utility, security, heavy manufacturing, or construction are just a few off the top of my head that the public trust demands those employees be “fit for duty” regardless of the public/private sector distinction due to the potential for fatal harm and/or destruction of property.

          The comment highlights the “rules for thee and not for me” mentality that C-suites have, to which I emphasize that while my viewpoint may seem narrow and extreme, it’s not due to a lack of broad views. I read that abstract and it’s a collection of concepts that does nothing to address some well understood concepts like “do you want a crane operator to be allowed to get high as a kite, jeopardizing lives?” as just one of many potential examples. If mandatory drug testing becomes ruled as illegal under the constitution, then we had damn well better amend it and figure this shit out…to which my and their point stands. I might even add that there are some ignorant assholes who apparently think it would just be great if we can all just be allowed to get high and kill people by accident. “It wasn’t a big deal, they just got some bad weed and the pilot killed himself and 200 people, what’s the big fucking deal?”

          • thisisnotgoingwell@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            My source discussed your concerns, I think you did not read it.

            “Most courts have ruled that mandatory urinalysis, at least in the absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, is invalid as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. While some courts have concluded that government workers may have a diminished expectation of privacy in comparison with the public at large, other courts have required some quantum of individualized suspicion before drug testing can be conducted. States have attempted to uphold mandatory drug testing by arguing that government employees voluntarily consent to drug testing and voluntary consent does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Courts have not accepted this argument, however, finding that consent obtained under the threat of disciplinary action is coercive and thus unconstitutional. The real issue in mandatory drug testing involves balancing individual versus government interests. Most courts hold that, absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, individual constitutional rights are not outweighed by governmental interests”

            • Shadywack@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I did, actually, so let’s break it down:

              The strongest and most often cited argument for rejecting mandatory urinalysis is that such testing is an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

              This is my issue right off the top, hence I bring up fit for duty requirements as a measure of preventing the loss of life and/or property. All reasonable suspicion and disciplinary issues arise after a major loss of life happens, and random UA testing has been viewed as a tool that functions preventatively in encouraging people not to show up under the influence of a substance, ie fit for duty.

              Had you displayed a modicum of understanding, you could see that point rather clearly, but it seems you like to use a stupid fucking red herring to detract from the point altogether. If it’s unconstitutional, then it ought to be amended, and while we’re at it, keep people accountable especially scumbag C-suite execs who are often making decisions that demonstrably lead to death and/or loss of property in various ways.

              • thisisnotgoingwell@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Your reading comprehension is horrible, to say the least. Let me highlight the keywords for you so it’s easier.

                Most courts have ruled that mandatory urinalysis, at least in the absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, is invalid as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s only a violation of the 4th amendment for government employees, because only the government is bound by the 4th amendment. It’s still bad, but not because of the Constitution.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Yes, I have. Have you?

              The Bill of Rights is all about limiting what the government is allowed to do. The text of that particular amendment is more vague about who it applies to, but let’s say for the sake of argument it is the law that prevents private employers from drug testing you without your consent. What it absolutely does not do is prevent your employer from firing you if you don’t consent to a search they want to do.

              • thisisnotgoingwell@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Thankfully, smarter people than you and I decide what the law “applies to.” That’s what the courts have ruled, there can be no “consent” if it’s a condition for employment. There must be articulated suspicion.

      • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because there are no instances in history where forcing drug use had been weaponized at the international level. Man, sometimes it’s so easy to see how lemmy is close to the same dark web that spams drug adverts on matrix.

        • Sentient Loom@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          You’re seriously suggesting that drug tests are designed to protect employees from employers forcing them to do drugs? That’s ridiculous.

  • MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    These are the same people that let him fire a car into orbit around Mars with an “empty” space suit in the driver’s seat.