Even though the entire ethos of my comment suggests that you wanna stay away from this stuff ... occasional/recreational use is not a big deal. He never pushed it on me, it was just something that I could take advantage of on occasion.

I don't look back on it and think it was predatory or a big deal or a malicious thing. I definitely don't think he deserves to be in jail or punished.

The guy is in a power relationship with his subordinates, he is definitely not the one to go and prescribe medication. The best thing he could have done is to send you to a doctor.

If a CEO here in NL suggested I take some pills in order to improve my productivity and offered to supply them my first step would be to inform the board in writing and my second would be to resign my position. This is simply not ok, and not acceptable.

These moral fiat statements are unhelpful to no one. You simply don’t know the context. In a very flat power structure or a very small company (2 to 3 employees) at the office, social dynamics change dramatically.

Never mind that caffeine is legal yet it’s the shittiest productivity drug I can imagine yet everyone is falling over themselves to serve it to you and get you one while they’re out on break. I’d much prefer people ask me if I’d like a pill of modafinil to the addictive cranky horror that is caffeine.

> These moral fiat statements are unhelpful to no one.

Nice to see we agree.

> social dynamics change dramatically.

I'm sorry, but whatever the 'social dynamics' as a person in a position of authority over another there are some lines you should never cross. Not knowing what your mandate is as a CEO is a recipe for disaster.

If an employee has a productivity issue a CEO does not have mandate to prescribe - or even suggest - medication. The fact that that needs spelling out is worrisome.

>If a CEO here in NL suggested I take some pills in order to improve my productivity

I'd agree that it's not professional/ethical, but the OP didn't say the CEO suggested it.

For all we know, poster might have initially asked (Of course, agreeing to hand out arbitrary medication is of course not the right answer).

It says 'to help productivity' which to me sounds like a benefit to the employer more than to the employee, which in turn suggests which way the flow was. That could of course still be wrong.

This conversation reminds me a little of the Vernor Vinge novel A Deepness In The Sky where the antagonists subjugate their conquered/enslaved foes with chemically-induced “focus” in order to improve their productivity/output. Explored is how this arrangement is not unambiguously good for the employer nor unambiguously bad for the “employee”.

Who the hell would ask their boss for drugs?

I dunno, maybe the CEO was open about using the medication for productivity reasons and both folk had a laid back attitude to the subject?

Point is I'm trying not too read too much into their dynamics and make assumptions based on a short HN comment.

Not that it makes a difference completely but I have a feeling the employee was 22 and the CEO was 24