Elon Musk

Elon Musk Tokes and Tesla Stock Tumbles

There's not much to say beyond that.

|

|||Screenshot via YouTube/ PowerfulJRE
Screenshot via YouTube/ PowerfulJRE

Real-life Tony Stark figure Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, followed his free spirit last night by getting a little high on comedian Joe Rogan's podcast.

Rogan pulled out a joint in the middle of the interview, leading Musk to wonder if it was a tobacco cigar or cannabis. Rogan confirmed it was the latter. At one point, Musk inhaled, exhaled, and shrugged the experience off before picking up a glass of whiskey and observing that alcohol is a drug that's "been grandfathered in."

Following Musk's interview with Rogan, as well as the recent resignation of a chief accounting officer, Tesla stock dropped 9 percent.

The moment was rather interesting considering some comments Musk made about marijuana and productivity just a few weeks prior. As noted, Musk once tweeted that he was considering selling shares of his company for $420. As you probably know, the number 420 is popularly associated with smoking pot.

When The New York Times asked Musk if he was smoking when he made the tweet, Musk replied, "Weed is not helpful for productivity. There's a reason for the word 'stoned.' You just sit there like a stone on weed." As for the figure, Musk said that $420 "seemed like better karma" than $419.

OK, then.

Those with over two and a half hours to spare can watch the full interview below. The hotbox begins at 2:09:05.

NEXT: Republican Members of Congress Just Sent Jeff Sessions Yet Another Letter Asking Him To Stop Holding Up Marijuana Research

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bravo Elon! Anyone who smokes openly is OK in my book. Still won’t buy one of your cars though.

    1. And definitely won’t be buying Tesla stock.

      1. I dunno, if it just dropped 9 points, presumably it’ll recover from Elon having… smoked some weed.

        1. Yeah – I do keep entertaining the idea that there’s money to be made riding Tesla’s swings, but I just can’t ever make myself that confident in the upswing.

          1. It’s so unpredictable. There’s no rhyme or reason to it whatsoever, so I just stay away. I’ve been tempted many times to play it one way or the other, but every time I’ve sat down and tried to come up with a good trading plan, I realize what a shit show that stock really is. Straight gambling and this latest thing is just one example.

            1. I’d be surprised if Tesla survived another 5 years. I’d rate one year as around a 50-50 chance. No way I’d buy that stock. Shorting it … maybe.

              Now, if someone was to come up with an index fund that left out IBM and Tesla, I’d buy that, cause those two companies are doomed.

      2. 1. Musk desperately wants to take Tesla private again

        2. Stock price is too damn high

        3. Handpicked key executives suddenly start to “resign”

        3. CEO suddenly and deliberately starts drinking, taking drugs and bitching about how hard it is for Tesla to survive, on camera

        Yeah, it’s a complete mystery what Musk is up to.

    2. And you are still a douchebag

      1. I was adding to my own earlier comment

        1. *puts down billy-club*

          1. [picks up billy-club, notices it’s actually a joint, shrugs, lights it up]

    3. I thought Elon just got contact high. And well he should abstain; anyone in his position should be piss tested as a government worker.

      1. Surely you can’t be serious.

    4. Elon: “It’s legal right?” *torches it*

  2. Prepare to see posters of this image to be on edgy teenagers’ walls right next to their Johnny cash flipping the bird picture and Einstein sticking his tongue out for Many years to come.

    1. I strongly doubt it. I predict Teslas will be the Edsels of the 2010s. And it will be “Elon who? Wasn’t he some con-artist from around the turn of the century?”

      1. Wikipedia tells me the Edsel was a 2-year experiment from an established car manufacturer that ate shit. Tesla is a totally different beast and has already proven itself popular. I was in California a few months ago and they are everywhere.

        Elon is in the history books, but he could still be disgraced with his careless tweets.

        1. I was in California a few months ago and they are everywhere.

          I noticed on a recent trip that they are pretty common in Southern California, but you almost never see them in the Bay Area. But “pretty common” is relatively speaking – i.e. they are about as common as high-end Corvettes.

          Elon as always promised that Tesla would eventually mass produce electric cars so that they would be as common as, say, Corollas.

          When I say Tesla will become the new Edsel, I mean that it will be looked back on as a lot of hype around a car that turned out to be “meh,” and a bit of a lemon in the end.

      2. If he’s remembered, it will probably be for the rockets.

        1. Oh yeah. I’m far from being a Musk cheer leader, but I can’t help but be amazed at the strides Spacex has made over the last decade. And while the rocket/space industry is inherently a government entwined subsidy shit-show, Spacex has actually helped to move things in a slightly more free-market direction.

        2. If he’s remembered, it will probably be for the rockets.

          That’s probably true. I suppose I could see him being remembered as a sort of Howard Hughes figure – a VC into lots of big, interesting things that almost always fail from a business perspective. As the DiCaprio version told Congress in The Aviator, “I lose money. It’s what I do.”

        3. Not the boring machine?

      3. Nah, think DeLorean.

        1. Nah, think DeLorean.

          There you go – that’s a better analogy. All we need is for Elon to get pulled over with a trunk full of cocaine and we’re 100% there.

          1. I don’t remember that part in Back To The Future.

            1. Wait a second…..what timeline is this???

              1. The other one.

        2. DeLoreans can go back in time. No Tesla can do that.

      4. Have you driven a Tesla?

        1. Definitely not on a road trip. A car that can go 0-60 in 2.4 seconds and has a driving range of 250 miles before it turns into a brick for many hours — or considerably less if you do the 2.4 second thing — is a commuter only toy.

    2. Nah, smoking weed is for boring old people now.

      1. ^ So much this. At 47, I think I’m the youngest person I’ve ever seen in our local dispensary.

      2. Clearly, you’ve never been to ACL Fest and smelled dankness set in about the same time darkness set in from a significant fraction of 80,000 young people toking up.

  3. “As for the figure, Musk said that $420 “seemed like better karma” than $419.”

    OK, so he definitely wasn’t stoned.

    1. Stoned or not, he was flirting with some bad karma by just using the word “karma.”

      The Karma was the lone production model offered by the now-defunct Fisker Automotive. Not exactly what one wants to think of when talking about the future of an electric automobile manufacturer.

      1. Worst name for a car ever.

        1. “It’s what you deserve.”

  4. It dropped because they lost two key executives in one day. The chief accounting officer resigned after a whopping one month on the job and their HR officer announced her resignation.

    1. The news reports try to make it sound like they jumped ship in response to this.

      1. They probably jumped ship in response to seeing the books– or at least the CFO did.

    2. The failure to produce cars is probably related, too.

    3. She wrote in her later, ‘I can’t! I won’t!’

    4. Also, he is getting his ass sued by the short sellers.

    5. dave b.|9.7.18 @ 3:23PM|#
      “It dropped because they lost two key executives in one day. The chief accounting officer resigned after a whopping one month on the job and their HR officer announced her resignation.”

      Yeah, the CEO toking on TV had nothing to do with it.

    6. And the major problems are in regarding to supply chain issues, not anyone lighting up. The transition of Tesla from a company servicing high-end customers in luxury enclaves to one with a potential nationwide and middle-class customer base (as the Model 3 rolls out, presuming supply keeps up with demand) is a huge one for the company and for Musk.

      And, if anything, this moment with Rogan would just be the latest in a string of moments ? including Musk accusing people of pedophilia on Twitter, his discussions of his insane work schedule, and the press’s microscopic focus on the travails of his dating life ? that suggest an overworked middle-aged man is having a problem dealing with public-private boundaries as he has a bit of a nervous breakdown. Given his role in his companies, both as their face and as an internal business and science thought leader, that can’t be something that investors and partners would be excited about. Of course, Reason only pays attention when pot appears.

  5. If something like this can cause your stock price to collapse, your stock price is a bubble to begin with.

  6. CNBC:
    “Shares of Tesla plunge after news of a pair of C-suite executive resignations and a bizarre video showing CEO Elon Musk smoking pot on a podcast. (emphasis mine)
    The suits at CNBC need to get with the times, and maybe do a little research on JRE. Shit’s legal gramps.

    1. “Shit’s legal gramps.”

      So’s booze, but a CEO chugging shots ain’t gonna help the stock price.

      1. a CEO chugging shots ain’t gonna help the stock price
        …And Musk just happened to do it at a time when he’s been trying to buy all the shares back and take the company private again. How amazingly “coincidental”.

    2. Something being legal doesn’t make it not bizarre.

  7. The last time I saw someone who said and did this kind of shit, he ended up running for president and, defying all expectations, won.

    In terms of ethical obligations to his shareholders, I think Musk might have an ethical obligation to fuck with the short sellers and yank their chains periodically.

    If you’re in Tesla for the moment, the week, or the quarter ’cause you like playing momentum swings, then you swim in Tesla at your own risk. Musk might decide to give you a haircut a with a tweet or such at any time, and he probably will.

    If you’ve been in Tesla for the long term? Musk doesn’t owe you any apologies.

    1. Saying that you intend to take the company private and have the financing secured when you don’t is a bit more than yanking the chain of short sellers. It’s committing fraud to goose the share price of a company that can’t meet earnings or production targets, or apparently retain a CFO.

      1. ^ This.

    2. If you’ve been in Tesla for the long term? Musk doesn’t owe you any apologies.

      That’s gonna depend on how long term you’re in. I and several of my associates are predicting a collapse of an eye-popping nature.

      1. Eventually those predictions will be correct, but they’ve been wrong for a while now. I also think the reckoning will be coming within the next year though. Maybe the board will try to oust him or something.

  8. “As you probably know, the number 420 is popularly associated with smoking pot.”

    Why would you assume that we know that? That’s just like your opinion and shit, man.

  9. Heard a report saying, ‘Musk smoked marijuana with a comedian’.

    Ouch! Not even a mention for Rogan!

  10. Really? Elon Musk as a Tony Stark figure?
    The differences greatly exceed the similarities. Very greatly.
    Musk is this century’s Ivan Krueger. Or worse.

    1. Damn auto-correct ? that’s Ivar not Ivan.

    2. Elon Musk as a Tony Stark figure?

      He even has a cameo in one of the Iron Man movies.

      1. He’s a shameless self-promoter, I’ll give you that.
        He cameo’d on The Simpsons and on Big Bang Theory, and likely others.

    3. It looks like he’s going into his “Demon in a Bottle” phase.

    4. I had to look up that name. FYI, name is Ivar, not Ivan, but yes, I think your comparison is apt.

    5. How long until Musk builds himself a flying suit exo-skeleton and tries to fight crime though?
      I’d give the over-under at 5 years.

  11. Did Musk hold his fingers in a white power symbol as he tweeted the 420 stock price?

    It seems insane to believe he did that, because…why in the world would he do that?

  12. can’t even pull off taking a hit w/o douching it up

  13. I don’t like the fact that everyone is all anti-Musk now. We libertarians were anti-Musk back when progressives were praising that rent-seeker and Tesla autos.

    Stupid posers

    1. Word.

    2. Yeah, now it’s suddenly like it’s cool to not be swayed by the Cult of Musk when Real Libertarians(tm) were on that wagon a long time ago.

      The only new opinion I have is how did he ever convince anyone to give him billions of dollars.

      Especially considering the question he never really answered in the first 10 minutes of the interview.

    3. I always thought the biggest Musk boosters were cosmotarians and young people, and it was mostly grumpy old farts who, in between looking up from our Ron Paul newsletters to yell at the Mexicans, nit-picked at the fact that he is a parasite and a carnival barker.

      There is a lot to find Musk exciting if you are indeed a corporate/Beltway type libertarian yearning for an inspiring Tony Stark figure. His Hyperloop will pwn wasteful high-speed rail! His SpaceX will pwn wasteful government space exploration! Tesla will have us all zipping around in self-driving hydrocel cars in eighteen months–pwning global-warming statists, urban rail enthusiasts, drunk driving alarmists, heavyhanded urban planners, taxi cartelists, knee jerk car haters, safety alarmists, helicopter moms, and so forth. And of course, he’s such a dreamy inspiring entrepreneur with a passion for his product at a time when capitalists and CEOs are demonized as soulless overpaid interchangeable mercenaries.

      I’m not sure he ever was a great inspiration to actual progs, even the bougie centrist corporate kind. He’s never had any interest in sending out the proper social virtue signals–another reason the reddit/intellectual dark web acolyte crowd seems to have always liked him.

    4. Elon Musk will always be a libertarian hero, even with all the government contracts.

  14. Is anyone else bothered that two public personalities are recorded committing an act that is a crime in both California and Federally?

    Seriously, it’s like the law doesn’t matter anymore.

    1. It’s not a crime in California.

      And nothing in recorded history has bred disrespect for the law quite like drug prohibition has.

      1. Smoking indoors is not a crime in California?

        1. Nope. Not if it’s private property. And especially not if it’s weed.

          1. Nope. Not if it’s private property.

            LOL you do know I was talking about California USA don’t you? The big state north of Baja?

            1. I smoked indoors in CA, and I think I got away with it.

            2. Our definition of “Private Property” is fuzzy, yes, but I could light up the Devil Weed (by which I mean tobacco) inside my house, or in my backyard, if I wanted to.

              I can even technically do it while walking down the street, but I would be compromising my personal safety.

              1. I always thought of “private property” as having the same meaning it has had for centuries and continues to have now!

                The 1998 statewide smoking ban and subsequent amendments do indeed permit smoking in private residential units, as well as everywhere in a backyard of a house. Additionally most (though a decreasing number) Cali municipalities still do permit smoking on public sidewalks…

                1. …There is at least one municipality in the state, however, that only permits smoking or vaping within its boundaries in owner-occupied, single unit, completely detached houses. Not in the yard or the balcony, mind you–in order to protect the city’s residents from outdoor secondhand smoke–nor in the car, which is banned, but only in the house. Of course they are exceedingly proud of being pioneers in this respect. The next step, of course, will be to end the outrage of legal smoking when children (and maybe even spouses, who knows, since there are pretty much no adults anymore) are present in the house. (Doubtless the fact that the present law actually forces parents to smoke indoors again was not only not a drawback to its being adopted but was even more zealously pursued in anticipation of creating a more intolerable status quo when the time came to take the next incremental step). From there they can move to “closing the detached-housing loophole” entirely when the newest “research” on thirdhand smoke, and how long it remains after a sale to new owners, comes in. Or maybe by that time the government will just openly say it is prohibitionist, as every antismoking figure openly does if you pay attention.

                  In any event, it is all certainly coming to a town near you if you live in Cali.

                2. I always thought of “private property” as having the same meaning it has had for centuries and continues to have now!

                  It was a big debate back in the ’90s whether private businesses counted. IIRC, there was even a carve-out where if a business was under a certain size and all employees consented, that it could allow smoking.

                  Now, as you say, we’re into more of a “does your apartment/condo inside of a building you don’t wholly own count as private property?”

                  There is at least one municipality in the state, however, that only permits smoking or vaping within its boundaries in owner-occupied, single unit, completely detached houses.

                  Berkeley?

          2. I like that you threw in that second part, because that can’t be said loudly enough.

            1. There are indeed a lot of wry observations to make about cigarette vs. weed attitudes in our prog new world; but in fact I’m pretty sure that weed is indeed covered by smoking bans in every rec-legal jurisdiction–Cali, Colorado, DC, Amsterdam, whatever. Actually keeps weed tourism a bit of a gray market because there is no place for a visitor to legally smoke. No way of knowing for sure, but that probably is depressing it more than some might imagine. (And it certainly won’t be alleviated anytime soon–the trend will doubtless be toward greater regulation of cannabis, not lesser–and definitely not before the concept of weed tourism itself begins to fade as more jurisdictions legalize.)

              1. Yes, you are correct. I was merely being snarky.

                Now that it’s legal, it’s actually less legal in a lot of ways. The reason that three years ago a guy could get on a bus in Oakland and act exempt from the “No Smoking” rule is that the law simply didn’t apply. What he was doing was already pretty much illegal, but winked-winked in Oakland. So you couldn’t take him down for smoking on a public bus, it would have to be for a variety of CSA-related charges that may well land him in jail. So you just look the other way instead.

                Now that it’s legal, even though there’s no evidence that it causes cancer (quite the opposite, in fact), it’s still considered “smoke” that’s covered by anti-smoking legislation, even though the anti-smoking legislation was based on the fact that tobacco smoke causes cancer.

                I can still smoke anything I like in my own house or my own backyard, though. Not that there isn’t a movement to change that, but it hasn’t been successful yet.

                1. During the “medical weed” period in California, whenever I’d meet hippies from that state, they’d often say they were against legalization because everyone could already smoke all the weed they wanted and “legalization will make it all corporate, man.” Shit like that.

                  At the time I’d always scoff at that as a bunch of hippie nonsense. And it mostly was, and they were mostly wrong, and I’d certainly have voted to legalize, but…

                  As my more pro-liberty older self I’ve come to know they weren’t entirely wrong. There are characteristics to genuinely value about the “wild west” character of that gray-legal status. A black market does exhibit characteristics that a free market should have, and that “legal” markets no longer do in our regulatory state. Of course they also exhibit plenty that they should not have–but when the market is semiofficially tolerated they exhibit somewhat fewer, allowing us a closer glimpse of how things should be…

                  1. …In 20 years weed will be like liquor is now, or like tobacco 30 years ago. Fuck, it may well be dominated by actual weed and tobacco companies! And, of course, we’ll be the only ones complaining. You may have seen articles recently about how the encroaching web of overregulation and overtaxation is already driving mom and pop growers in Colorado to the breaking point in favor of megagrowers who can afford the compliance. The microgrower lobby has been pleading with regulators and politicians at each step to not do these things. But I think they know what is and is not a promising prospect in this day and age.

                    At least, their spokesman says, subsidize artisanal weed so that we can compete.

                  2. I think there is something to be said for grey markets. I sort of think the best realistic scenario would be to have possession and growing legalized and low key trade ignored. And that’s what will happen anyway because it will be over-taxed and regulated, so it will be like alcohol.

                2. there’s no evidence that it causes cancer (quite the opposite, in fact)
                  Inhaling any partially burnt organic compounds can be carcinogenic. It doesn’t matter if it’s tobacco, marijuana, a campfire, leaves or a burnt pork chop.

                  I’d seriously question your sources if I were you.

          3. And especially not if it’s weed.

            Sorry, third part.

            1. True story – I was riding a bus in Oakland several years back and a guy got on with a lit joint in his hand. When the bus driver said “you can’t get on here with that,” he bristled with outraged and shouted out “it’s not like it’s a cigarette!

        2. You know, since the country is totally like private property that is owned by the taxpayers, we can totally ban smoking in the while country and it would be totally libertarian.

          1. The people have spoken! That is real freedom.

            1. …Also, you forgot about the fact that your decisions affect the prices I pay for products I purchase. (In the case of smoking or seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, recklessness almost certainly reduces lifetime healthcare costs, but never mind.) Therefore, your decisions are my business. QED.

              1. …Of course, this is all nasty, fascistic progspeak. Real libertarians do not speak of “the people” somehow making decisions collectively through some sort of morally significant mechanism–“deciding” this or that, “governing themselves as they see fit,” and the like–until they get down to the local or at least the state level. Only then does democratic decisionmaking magically acquire intrinsic moral virtue.

                1. Only then does democratic decisionmaking magically acquire intrinsic moral virtue.

                  The virtue of democratic decision making is inversely proportional to the number of people involved. Three people deciding together what to have for dinner is a good thing. Three-hundred million people deciding how everyone should have their healthcare administered is not.

                  1. Three people “taking a vote” on whether the one female is going to have sex with the two males in the group…

                    1. Or two cannibals and a vegan.

    2. JRE is in California so as far as The Law is concerned, I believe they’re fully in the clear.

    3. Which act is that now? I really hope this is subtle humor.

      The law only matters if it’s a just law that most people would follow anyway, or if you get caught.

    4. The law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

  15. If Elon Musk=Tony Stark, who is Musk’s Pepper Pots?

  16. It’s kinda weird… I’m 49 minutes in, and I can’t help but thinking Musk would be fun to talk to and debate around nerdy tech subjects for a couple of hours while you drank and smoked weed, but I still can’t get over the fact that people have handed him billions of dollars.

    Far out, Elon, I like where you’re coming from on the simulations running on the substrate, broheim… wha… what’s that? You want me to give you how much? Duude, you crack me up, but I gotta go to bed, I got work in the morning ‘n shit.

    1. Yeah – he seems like he’d be fun in a my thumb is a galaxy sort of conversation, but also the type of guy who when he says “can I borrow five bucks?” that you’re never seeing that five bucks again.

  17. Shop http://www.moschinoonlinesale.com Moschino Outlet Store, Buy Moschino McDonald iPhone Case Red with Big Discount, Fast Delivery and Free Worldwide Shipping…
    moschino t shirt

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.