I am interested that there is a whole thread dedicated to people who supposedly aren't interested in Tesla badmouthing Tesla because... ???

I mean, hey, whatever floats your boat.

Got here on accident thinking I was logging into the other Tesla thread. Makes more sense to talk about things I'm excited but whatever, internet.

For many of you, I think once you get the chance to drive an electric car, be it a Tesla or other, you might be surprised. We got a Leaf on a whim last year because both our cars were dying. Cost $7600. Been to the shop once for a quick sensor issue, no other repairs. Including electricity cost, saved us over $100 / month in gas costs.

Have had two friends get Leaf's since then after they experienced ours. No, it's not a cross country car that will take me to Alaska and back without needing to stop or whatever, but it's a perfect second car for around town. Plan now is to replace the almost completely dead gas car with a long range electric ASAP. I don't mind a 30 minute stop after four hours of driving because I don't drive more than that without stopping anyway. I'll be more than happy to not have to worry about oil changes or fueling up or whatever in the meantime. It's a great solution for me.

It's not for everyone.

And that's okay.

I like Viper Night Drivin' Pinball. A lot of people think it sucks. That's also okay.

He did a legal drug. I know that Marijuana scares some people for whatever reason, but really, he did nothing different than having a beer where he was.

I agree with some of the erratic behavior stuff. The cave diver thing is out of line, although I also understand the frustration he would have had from that whole situation.

Having said that, and this is coming from a guy who has never done any drugs that weren't prescribed to me and who barely drinks at all, it seems a lot of people forget that Marijuana is legal in more and more places. What he did is not materially different than drinking a beer, which ceos do and heck, Obama did as president in some "beer summit" a few years ago.

Musk is in a very progressive state running a very progressive company.

Having said that, I do think they need to find a second person to back him up strongly and keep him out of the limelight a bit. The company he runs is doing amazing things. A lot of that is being overlooked because people are seeing his statements instead.

Maybe 30 years ago, but I really doubt it now. Many states are legalizing, and there are interesting legal issues that haven't yet been crossed in states where it is legal but doesn't impair your work. How you can dictate what someone does off work hours is difficult, and marijuana, due to it's nature, is tougher to figure out.

You don't want someone who is high on pot doing something dangerous with a bunch of people around. But, you also don't want that person drunk. If they are legally doing it on their own time safely, and are being safe at work, how can you really say the person who was blacked out drunk is far better than the person who was stoned?

I worked for a publicly traded company in HR at the time California made it legal, one with a drug policy in place. There was a ton of talk back and forth about how to handle it, and it basically came down to we wouldn't terminate anyone (in California) for showing marijuana on their drug test unless they exhibited signs of also being impaired while on duty. It came down to we didn't want to be the ones going to court to explain why we should be able to dictate what someone can legally do in their spare time. It remained a fireable offense in other markets because it was illegal.

Long story short, it's in a legally weird spot in so many ways right now (including that it's illegal federally and they want to enforce that while states are legalizing it...), but don't think that publicly traded companies are going to be fighting to terminate employees for what they legally do on their own time.

As for Tesla, they just announced a bunch of new executive promotions tonight. I said before Musk needs a strong second, and they seem to have just put Jerome Guillen into what appears to be that spot, which I think could be a genius move. Jerome came to Tesla 8 years ago from Daimler where he both led the Cascadia program and then created a car sharing program in Europe. At Tesla, he kind of has done it all - leading the Model S team from prototype to production and ramp, the Tesla Semi team, making an assembly line, running sales and service, and dealing with Musk for 8 years.

In many ways, he is quite similar to Shotwell at SpaceX, and I think could have the power and autonomy to do his own thing.

You wouldn't want them getting drunk and coming to work a few hours later either.

But if you got drunk Friday night and went to work Monday completely fine, is that okay?

If so, what about marijuana makes it different?

As for your nicotine comparison, marijuana isn't known to have nearly the long term health effects that cigarette smoke.

I don't smoke and barely drink, but to me I don't understand the big deal.

You do realize nothing in that post said anything about that, right?

Regardless, Joe Rogan is on the podcast in an official duty. He regularly smokes weed during it. He also tours the country, often performing for locations. Should we all be worried about that?

We can extend that to a lot of public personalities that work for other groups all the time. Snoop Dogg appears for other groups. His marijuana use is part of the deal.

I don't see any difference between what Musk did and someone sharing a drink publicly. If he would have done that, I can't imagine any complaints.

Again, Musk is in California where it's legal. He probably didn't think it would scare all the refeer madness folk since that isn't how California operates.

You said you wouldn't want the janitor smoking. That would be your rule. The actual rules, as I mentioned from being on the HR side, are much muddier with something that is now legal.

Oh gosh, I am kind of stunned you're still on the marijuana thing.

You may get fired for smoking marijuana, either on your free time or not, depending on your company policy. Having stated that, like I was saying to begin with, as attitudes of marijuana are changing from the "OH NOES REEFER MADNEZZ!" hysteria of the past to the attitude today of why not, that changes things. You said before...

I know this may seem hard for you to understand since it wasn't your experience, but I worked at a major, publicly traded corporation (worth billions then and today) in their HR department. As I explained, in locations where it was legal, we realized that it was legally dubious to terminate someone for something that they were doing legally on their own time, and we therefore decided to treat marijuana the exact same as we would treat alcohol - if you came in to work and were impaired, you were terminated. If you did it responsibly, on your own time, you would not be.

Some companies have opted not do this. It's up to your company, and what you feel is right. That will continue to evolve as the nation becomes more accepting of it.

Without writing a huge thing about it in the hating on Tesla thread, in short one of the largest difficulties is figuring out a way to determine how high is "too" high and then do some sort of instant test for that. With alcohol, it shows up in both breath and blood and gives some pretty easy ways for both enforcement and users to sort of determine where they sit. Marijuana is missing that, which makes it much trickier for people to both feel like they are consuming in moderation and to know when they are safe to drive or operate machinery or whatever. That will be something that evolves, but again - if you're toking up tomorrow night, and then not again and go into work Monday morning, you're going to be fine. Unless we can all get self driving cars, and then this stuff won't matter.

Oh yeah, and...

They had quite the solid earnings report this past quarter. Seems they have enough cash on hand right now to pay all their loans coming due for at least a year.

Exactly!

The only major question slowing further rules like this I think is just the whole "how much is too much" test doesn't really exist for it that I know of. At least, when we were talking about it, that was sort of our sticking point, and why we said that if they appear impaired, we will treat it the same as someone showing up drunk to work - instant termination. But, if they are not impaired, and can fill their duty as our employee, why should I tell them what they can or can't do?

I'm all about personal freedom. I don't choose to do any drugs myself, with the exception of minor amounts of alcohol, but that's my choice. I don't want the government telling me what I can or can't do, which also means I don't want them telling you what you can or can't do. I feel like we have enough information in this day and age that we can make choices for ourselves.

Tesla claimed last quarter to have a margin of nearly 25% on their auto sales. Admittedly, this was a higher mix of higher cost cars, but that is still pretty amazing.

In the meantime, they also built out 12,000+ high speed refueling stations in SuperChargers. Anyone who dismisses the company as valueless or bankrupt I think forgets just how valuable those chargers are. No other automaker has anything other than a hope and dream someone else will make one.

The material risk, in my opinion, to Tesla is that they keep building out the SuperCharger network like crazy, and burning their capital on that which isn't a huge money maker for the company. They need to stay so far ahead of other manufacturers to keep the margin to provide for that network.

If it wasn't for that part of their business, I think they'd be fine - assuming demand stayed the same. But it's a chicken and egg thing, and they're making both at the same time.

I expect the Y will have ridiculous margins. It uses so many identical parts to the 3, and the largest cost component of the drive train will be identical to the 3. I also think we aren't going to see any issues ramping it up, and they might surprise people and start shipping them early.

That may not make up for other things, but I don't think they are doing too bad at keeping all the plates they can spinning.

If they are just an auto maker, heck yeah. Even a worse product mix shouldn't result in a loss.

If they are an auto maker that is also making a fast charging network, solar systems, grid based battery backup, and more... Nope.

The fact that they feel they should roll out a SuperCharger network so quickly is both their biggest asset and biggest risk, and yet so many people don't see it as a positive. From my perspective as a Tesla owner, it's mind blowing how awesome the network is, and I can (and already have) make a trip anywhere with no worries about making it or charging, and with little time needed to do so.

I also know that between the price they have to be paying for electricity and the usage rates of the chargers, the purchase price of my car is paying for those stations way more than the amount I pay them for the electricity.