> I hate it because of the damage it will do to Tesla and SpaceX when he's likely banned from leading a company.

He would only be banned from leading a public company; SpaceX is still private (and, heck, maybe he could realize his plan of taking Tesla private, too.)

So, SpaceX wouldn't be directly effected.

Could affect their ability to get government contracts if he's convicted.

I was surprised to see someone dealing with export restricted technology and secret clearance launch missions smoke mj on the podcast. I know for a fact they're still relatively zero tolerance about that.

Well, the stock is definitely on sale compared to where it was when he made that statement, so maybe!

SpaceX could be affected by him losing his security clearance for illegal drug use though.

So US interests could be harmed by damage to an important US company, itself entirely due to backwards US drug policies? I don't think Musk is the problem in that case...

Still stupid of him to break it publicly even if the law is stupid. But even stupider is the recreational use of Ambien and wine, which is a legitimate security risk.

You overestimate SpaceX's importance.

No, he is not.

Yes, because he showed such amazing judgment. It’s obviously the law that’s messed up.

It obviously is. Countless billions of dollars wasted and millions deprived of their freedom for what? Prohibition will go down in history as one of the biggest mistakes of our time.

Who would have though #yolo #420 #blazeit is not a good way to lead a company?

Which literally nobody cares about.

Illegal drug use?

Smoking marijuana and, allegedly, the acid that prompted the tweets in the SEC suit.

Marijuana is illegal, federally.

Obama, the then Candidate, publicly admitted he "inhaled". People voted for him and made him the President. Elon on a show smoked once and explicitly said it is not productive and he never smokes weed at all. Some how it is a topic of discussion every where and he lost his mind and what not. Double standards !

It would be a double standard if Obama chose to broadcast illegal drug use to millions of people to score some internet points while holding a security clearance.

Marijuana

>I hate it because of the damage it will do to Tesla

The day Tesla hires someone who can actually run a car company will be a good day for Tesla.

Tesla is not without challenges, but I am very happy with the products they have delivered thus far, and if I could afford them I would have a model x and s.

I see this sentiment a lot but the reality is not only are the cars that they have delivered good but I think their safety ratings are top notch. I am not sure I want a 'regular car company ceo' I do not think they would have delivered in the way Tesla as a company has.

From all the stories in the last year it seems like if you took a regular car company CEO they would’ve been delivering faster with better build quality. Perhaps service times wouldn’t be so atrocious either.

Or rain wouldn’t cause bumpers to fall off.

Tesla’s tech is pretty top-notch (excluding auto pilot which I have doubts about).

I think their ability to build cars is questionable.

If you took a regular car company CEO, Tesla would be building hybrids and selling through dealerships and charging for map updates and providing atrocious media software and generally not doing any of the things that makes them interesting.

I recall bailing out a LOT of executives at car companies not that long ago, don't you?

Just because there are bad executives at other car companies doesn't mean there aren't some amazing ones as well.

Your logic does not flow.

SpaceX is not a public company so I don't see how a ban would affect Musk w/ r.t. SpaceX.

also, otoh: think about the good things that could happen to $TSLA when Elon is removed from being a CEO.

Not sure though. SpaceX is a federal contractor. And to be at the helm of a company with federal access, you might need a clean record. When Musk was smoking pot on radio, the AirForce had to look into it to see if there was any actions they needed to take.

Why didn't they? He was committing a federal crime.

You don't want to have to go hat in hand to the Russians for RD-180 engines to launch your national security payloads (which the Russians specifically won't sell their engines to US integrators for [1] [2]), or waste $100 million more on an unnecessary Delta launch (vs Atlas). Better to ignore a minor infraction.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=russian+engines+national+sec...

[2] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-national...

Ahh, my mistake. I was unaware that the SEC does not have pull over privately held companies, or at least their employees. Still, the wave of litigation headed Musk's way can't help matters. He's going to be very busy.

> the SEC does not have pull over privately held companies

I'm not sure this is accurate. The SEC could try to bar someone from serving as CEO or a director of any corporation. It's just never attempted that. The SEC regulates everyone who touches securities, and private companies issue securities.

This ban, however, specifically restricts itself to public companies. The issue is therefore moot.

If he's banned from leading Tesla, perhaps he'll start mucking SpaceX up with his newly available attention.

I'd like to think Shotwell et. al already have a pretty well established convention as to how much Musk is allowed to intervene directly in operation and decision-making.

He can pretend that he knows better than automotive engineers but I think his self-awareness is better calibrated when it comes to rocketry.

He definitely has a lot of say when it comes to the technical details of rocket design. Mueller told the story about how on Merlin engine he insisted on utilizing fluid Dynamics to control the fuel instead of using valves, when everyone else disagreed, and the idea worked really well. And you know that there is no way Musk can fire Mueller and keep SpaceX so he doesn't need to brown nose Musk.

He can take the CEO slot anytime he wants, but he should not.

Get a new, non-founding CEO has worked wonders for lots of companies. There are very few (possibly zero) people who are "the only person for the job".

Musk wasn't a founding member of Tesla. In fact, not all of the founders of Tesla were big fans of Musk's hire.

Your point is valid though, and I do think someone could go in there and take over his job effectively. That doesn't mean there won't be a period of relative instability while that transition takes place.

Everywhere I've seen says that he's a co-founder of Tesla.

Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning founded Tesla. Elon Musk joined the board as part of their Series A a year later, and then became the CEO a few years after that.

That's because after he took over complete control he retroactively titled himself a “founder” even though he was not, in fact, involved in founding the company (he was the leading funder of their Series A, and has been the main stockholder since then, but “funder” and “founder” aren't the same thing.)

Musk may be brilliant, but he's got a long history of a slippery relationship with the truth.

That's because his PR team has pushed that narrative for years. He wasn't a founder however.

It's also tanked more than a few companies.