4 ms·

Rise of pill-popping tech execs

54 points by whalesalad 3y ago

paxys 3y ago
How does it compare to execs in other industries and the public at large? Sharing isolated numbers is pointless. It very well could be that tech execs take _less_ "controlled substances" than their counterparts in finance, law, politics, education, medicine...
Animats 3y ago
The actual study can be downloaded.[1] Causes of stress: - 77% say layoffs have negatively impacted their health. - 74% say improvements in AI and the thought of being replaced by a computer have negatively impacted their health. Those are much larger numbers than expected. "The total sample size was 501 tech leaders (director level and above) in the U.S. aged 18+ in tech firms with 1,000+ employees. The survey was conducted between April 27, 2023 to May 15, 2023 by independent market research consultancy, Censuswide." [1] https://apn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/APN-Tech-Execs-Mini-Report-Outline-3.pdf https://apn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/APN-Tech-Execs-Mi...
- smaddox 3y ago
  What processes/procedures are in place to prevent polls like this from being completely fabricated? Why should I trust this data any more than a tobacco company's studies showing it's perfectly safe to smoke cigarettes?
  - Animats 3y ago
    That's a good question. How did they get over 1000 "director level" people to participate? That's not a group that's likely to opt in to some survey, or even be reachable by cold calls. They probably cold-called a list like this.[2] [1] https://censuswide.com/about-us/ https://censuswide.com/about-us/ [2] https://www.spanglobalservices.com/data/director-level-executives-list/ https://www.spanglobalservices.com/data/director-level-execu...
0xfai 3y ago
People do drugs. It's just becoming less taboo to talk about it. Putting humans under the influence of daily booze and speed in charge of the biggest and most populated ships that steer our society.. yeah. We can see the results. It's not new though. It's part of how we got here. I know the article isn't in judgement or is but walks a linguistic line that's razor thin to technically not be directly judgmental. They do frame the drugs like they are illegal when probably they are prescribed. It's reporting the fact that execs are comfortable disclosing and maybe the drug specifics are changing a bit. Not the booze and speed, but the addition of ubiquitous ketamine or LSD or whatever, but judgement of drug users by puritans is so fucking counter productive. I really appreciate those in those positions who are willing to talk about it even though they are only doing the disclosure for "I work so hard and am under so much stress that I'm high as fuck all the time" clout/flex. We have such a skewed understanding of what drugs are and what they do, I think it's a net good that they are self reporting.
sh34r 3y ago
Lies, damn lies, and statistics… > 4 in 5 tech execs are taking medications ("controlled substances"), and among that cohort 1 in 2 use them "every day or nearly every day." Would it be surprising to anyone to find out that ~40% of tech leaders are neurodivergent? Programmer and related jobs are at the top of every list of suggested careers for people with ADHD. > 1 in 3 used controlled substances such as amphetamines and sleeping pills specifically to cope with work stress and long hours. What a poorly worded question. Why not ask specifically: do you abuse amphetamines to work longer hours? Do you abuse opiates, ketamine, cannabis, or benzos to “wind down?” Do you use benzos occasionally for work related panic attacks? They’re being extremely weaselly by grouping all controlled substances together here. Would it concern anyone to find out that 33% of tech leaders smoke weed occasionally to relax? And what’s the overlap between the 40% of daily users and this cope cohort? I suspect it’s vanishingly small, but they won’t provide that data, because they’re pushing an agenda here. > 1 in 2 self-reported as qualifying as heavy drinkers (3-7 drinks per day) There is a world of difference between the bottom and top end of that range. It’s the difference between an unhealthy habit and straight-up alcoholism. Conflating the two further reveals the overwhelming bias of this article.
- choruspreacher 3y ago
  [dead]
- meltyness 3y ago
  This is all oddly specific.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  3 a day seems like a reasonable threshold for heavy drinking. That's a lot. I'm pretty amazed that 50% are heavy drinkers. Not sure why there's a max in this range though; they should have just said 3 or more. Some of your other concerns have more to do with this article's representation of the survey than the survey itself: https://apn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/APN-Tech-Execs-Mini-Report-Outline-3.pdf https://apn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/APN-Tech-Execs-Mi...
  - 3y ago
TechBro8615 3y ago
Amphetamines are beneficial drugs for many people, and the status quo is that anyone can get a legitimate prescription for them by doing little more than asking. It's just a matter of finding a psychiatrist and explaining you have symptoms of ADHD. There are no physical symptoms, so it's impossible to verify one way or the other. Some might say that means that a drug seeking patient can "trick" their prescriber. But I'd argue the entire field of psychiatry is a "trick," and that effectively, if you think you have symptoms of ADHD, then you may as well have it. If you want to try treatment (amphetamines), then you should have a right to do that. As it stands, you already de facto have this right. But you need to do this whole song and dance with finding a doctor, paying the fees, and getting the pills. Yes, online telemedicine has made this easier to "abuse" (see above: it's not possible to abuse a diagnosis that is fundamentally based on perception of deviance from the mean). But even prior to online psychiatry, it was easy to legally procure such medication with a little extra effort. We should dispense with this charade and focus on safe and effective treatment of symptoms for those who want to try it. The goal of a prescriber should therefore not be to gatekeep access to the medication, but to manage its dosage and monitor patients for positive outcomes from healthy usage of the medication.
- api 3y ago
  We should have easy to obtain or even OTC Vyvanse or some similar stimulant that is abuse resistant. (Vyvanse is turned into amphetamine in the liver, rate limiting absorption.) It would probably help a lot of people and at the same time reduce the number who get into dangerous street stims like meth. Low dose time release Vyvanse would probably be no worse than a lot of caffeine or these energy drinks full of megadoses of taurine and stuff. Amphetamine is actually not that dangerous if taken at reasonable doses and not abused. Street meth is impure, uncontrolled in dose, and delivered without proper packaging.
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    I'm ADHD and I respond terribly to amphetamine (or Vyvanse). On low doses I become more irritable (or in my wife's words "an asshole"), and the one time I took a higher dose (at the instruction of my psychiatrist because I wasn't getting a therapeutic effect at the lower dose), I had a manic episode and was awake for 36 hours straight. Finally settled on Focalin as working for me, but every time we changed insurance companies I had to spend a few hours on the phone proving to them that amphetamine doesn't work, while paying out-of-pocket until they are convinced.
Scoundreller 3y ago
> 4 in 5 tech execs are taking medications ("controlled substances"), and among that cohort 1 in 2 use them "every day or nearly every day." Is not what the survey said. The survey said (direct link: https://apn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/APN-Tech-Execs-Mini-Report-Outline-3.pdf https://apn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/APN-Tech-Execs-Mi... ): 80% are taking medications but doesn’t say only controlled medications. It then says 48% take controlled substances daily or every other day. It also states 31% have increased their controlled substances as a direct consequence of AI, which I find suspect.
- TechBro8615 3y ago
  We should also consider the baseline [0]. If this is a problem in America, it's not one that's isolated to the tech sector: > In 2019, 19.2% of U.S. adults received any mental health treatment in the past 12 months, including 15.8% who had taken prescription medication for their mental health and 9.5% who had received counseling or therapy from a mental health professional. That was for 2019. I expect those numbers increased significantly during and after the pandemic. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db380.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db380.htm
- ttymck 3y ago
  To me, it's not clear if the survey is using "medication" interchangeably with "controlled substances". As you point out: the section heading reads "medications" but all the subpoints read "controlled substances". I'd wager it's intentionally ambiguous, for hype points.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    I had the same thought, but can't imagine what else it is. I'd like to think that if these people were on cocaine, we'd at least see some of the creative irrationality that led to the more-fun aspects of the 70s and 80s. Who's making anything awesome just for the sake of doing it? Who's commissioning assassinations of business rivals? Which startup founders are trying to save their failing business by pivoting to drug smuggling? Were it weed, they'd be more chill and empathetic. They're not. Musk constantly looks like his blood pressure is through the roof. He's probably done it once or twice for spectacle (e.g. all the 4/20 stuff and that podcast) but is doing rails of Adderall the rest of the time. It explains him sleeping under his desk like that's some kind of sign of hard work. All I see is a demented bridge troll going through an Adderall crash. Shrooms? LSD? They'd be chill, happier, and trying to pivot the core business in entirely new directions every week. At least one of them would have had an epiphany and actually tried to make the world a better place. There's also no creativity to be found. Our architecture consists of baby's first shapes. Our car colors are every shade of baby shit. America (and the internet) has never been more sterile. Reddit has always looked like a corporate portal. I'm convinced it's all Adderall for all of these people, and the ambiguity in verbiage comes from it not all being legally obtained. It's not prescribed medication at that point, it's just a controlled substance they are in unlawful possession of.
mercurialsolo 3y ago
I would love to also know how many tech execs meditate to extend creativity. We have long since endeavored to push the boundary on creativity and performance - from pills to sensory deprivation tanks, to extreme adventure to BM like experiences. You can club a wide range of things under pills. Supplementation is an essential part of health and without concrete stats and evidence this is just sensationalism. Would be super interested in knowing though - How much of the community here leans in on pills vs supplements vs meditation?
petercooper 3y ago
One of Matt Levine's recent columns was about this topic too: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-06-27/silicon-valley-is-on-drugs https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-06-27/silico...
taeric 3y ago
With the amount of aspirin and ibuprofen that is sold, I would love to see a similar story on how much folks pop standard pain medications. I'm always baffled at the impressively large sizes those bottles come in. And since I don't know the shelf life of them, I'm very doubtful that the bottle I bought a decade ago is the one i should still be using. (I'm not doubtful enough to care when I have a bad headache, of course...)
- gms7777 3y ago
  The expiration date on most medications functions differently than the expiration date on something like food. It's more about effectiveness than it is about safety. It's the date that the manufacturer can guarantee full potency of the drug. After this date, the drug may have lost some potency. However the vast majority of drugs are still effective, even 15 years after the expiration date [1], if they've been stored correctly. There are some exceptions which either degrade quickly or can gain toxicity post expiration (e.g., nitorglycerin, insulin, liquid antibiotics, biologics), but something like ibuprofen would generally be safe even years after expiration though it may be marginally less effective. [1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/drug-expiration-dates-do-they-mean-anything https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/drug-expirati...
ipnon 3y ago
If these people are tech execs, then presumably they are extremely productive members of the economy. What does it matter what they do in private? If you’re an avid unicyclist it should have no bearing on your appearance of respectability unless you’re skipping work to unicycle or unable to work because of unicycle injuries.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > If these people are tech execs, then presumably they are extremely productive members of the economy. First of all, executives rarely are productive members of the economy - the value is created by the exploitation of those below them in the ranks. > What does it matter what they do in private? Because what they do as a consequence of snorting cocaine and whatnot has consequences on society at large - mass unemployment events, destroying everything around them with their sheer scale (such as Walmart is infamous for), or ruining entire neighborhoods, even entire cities like AirBnB did.
  - ipnon 3y ago
    In the spirit of friendly discussion, would you be able to acknowledge that the leaders of company being unproductive and exploitative is not a mainstream theory of the economy? Would you be able to acknowledge that you are equating riding unicycles outside of work with economic recession and urban decay? To be frank I found this comment disturbing because it is arguing against me from a line of reasoning I do not hold.
renewiltord 3y ago
Yep, this is a good thing. Those placed at highest leverage burning at max engines during their productive time is ideal for society. Good stuff.
abeppu 3y ago
> 3 in 4 say that recent layoffs, and the future risk of AI replacing their roles, have negatively affected their health. I'm glad the execs also have this fear; it shouldn't just be ICs and contractors who are afraid. I think we've all known execs who appear to add very little value, who have a very shallow understanding of the areas they oversee, and who seem to repeatedly create the appearance of success off of other people's work in order to move to a new role to start the cycle again. I'm not saying we're yet ready to replace them with LLMs, but perhaps we're not so far away either.

54 points by whalesalad 3y ago

How does it compare to execs in other industries and the public at large? Sharing isolated numbers is pointless. It very well could be that tech execs take _less_ "controlled substances" than their counterparts in finance, law, politics, education, medicine...

Animats 3y ago

The actual study can be downloaded.[1] Causes of stress: - 77% say layoffs have negatively impacted their health. - 74% say improvements in AI and the thought of being replaced by a computer have negatively impacted their health. Those are much larger numbers than expected. "The total sample size was 501 tech leaders (director level and above) in the U.S. aged 18+ in tech firms with 1,000+ employees. The survey was conducted between April 27, 2023 to May 15, 2023 by independent market research consultancy, Censuswide." [1] https://apn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/APN-Tech-Execs-Mini-Report-Outline-3.pdf https://apn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/APN-Tech-Execs-Mi...

smaddox 3y ago
What processes/procedures are in place to prevent polls like this from being completely fabricated? Why should I trust this data any more than a tobacco company's studies showing it's perfectly safe to smoke cigarettes?
- Animats 3y ago
  That's a good question. How did they get over 1000 "director level" people to participate? That's not a group that's likely to opt in to some survey, or even be reachable by cold calls. They probably cold-called a list like this.[2] [1] https://censuswide.com/about-us/ https://censuswide.com/about-us/ [2] https://www.spanglobalservices.com/data/director-level-executives-list/ https://www.spanglobalservices.com/data/director-level-execu...

0xfai 3y ago

People do drugs. It's just becoming less taboo to talk about it. Putting humans under the influence of daily booze and speed in charge of the biggest and most populated ships that steer our society.. yeah. We can see the results. It's not new though. It's part of how we got here. I know the article isn't in judgement or is but walks a linguistic line that's razor thin to technically not be directly judgmental. They do frame the drugs like they are illegal when probably they are prescribed. It's reporting the fact that execs are comfortable disclosing and maybe the drug specifics are changing a bit. Not the booze and speed, but the addition of ubiquitous ketamine or LSD or whatever, but judgement of drug users by puritans is so fucking counter productive. I really appreciate those in those positions who are willing to talk about it even though they are only doing the disclosure for "I work so hard and am under so much stress that I'm high as fuck all the time" clout/flex. We have such a skewed understanding of what drugs are and what they do, I think it's a net good that they are self reporting.

sh34r 3y ago

Lies, damn lies, and statistics… > 4 in 5 tech execs are taking medications ("controlled substances"), and among that cohort 1 in 2 use them "every day or nearly every day." Would it be surprising to anyone to find out that ~40% of tech leaders are neurodivergent? Programmer and related jobs are at the top of every list of suggested careers for people with ADHD. > 1 in 3 used controlled substances such as amphetamines and sleeping pills specifically to cope with work stress and long hours. What a poorly worded question. Why not ask specifically: do you abuse amphetamines to work longer hours? Do you abuse opiates, ketamine, cannabis, or benzos to “wind down?” Do you use benzos occasionally for work related panic attacks? They’re being extremely weaselly by grouping all controlled substances together here. Would it concern anyone to find out that 33% of tech leaders smoke weed occasionally to relax? And what’s the overlap between the 40% of daily users and this cope cohort? I suspect it’s vanishingly small, but they won’t provide that data, because they’re pushing an agenda here. > 1 in 2 self-reported as qualifying as heavy drinkers (3-7 drinks per day) There is a world of difference between the bottom and top end of that range. It’s the difference between an unhealthy habit and straight-up alcoholism. Conflating the two further reveals the overwhelming bias of this article.

choruspreacher 3y ago
[dead]
meltyness 3y ago
This is all oddly specific.
foobarbecue 3y ago
3 a day seems like a reasonable threshold for heavy drinking. That's a lot. I'm pretty amazed that 50% are heavy drinkers. Not sure why there's a max in this range though; they should have just said 3 or more. Some of your other concerns have more to do with this article's representation of the survey than the survey itself: https://apn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/APN-Tech-Execs-Mini-Report-Outline-3.pdf https://apn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/APN-Tech-Execs-Mi...
- 3y ago

TechBro8615 3y ago

Amphetamines are beneficial drugs for many people, and the status quo is that anyone can get a legitimate prescription for them by doing little more than asking. It's just a matter of finding a psychiatrist and explaining you have symptoms of ADHD. There are no physical symptoms, so it's impossible to verify one way or the other. Some might say that means that a drug seeking patient can "trick" their prescriber. But I'd argue the entire field of psychiatry is a "trick," and that effectively, if you think you have symptoms of ADHD, then you may as well have it. If you want to try treatment (amphetamines), then you should have a right to do that. As it stands, you already de facto have this right. But you need to do this whole song and dance with finding a doctor, paying the fees, and getting the pills. Yes, online telemedicine has made this easier to "abuse" (see above: it's not possible to abuse a diagnosis that is fundamentally based on perception of deviance from the mean). But even prior to online psychiatry, it was easy to legally procure such medication with a little extra effort. We should dispense with this charade and focus on safe and effective treatment of symptoms for those who want to try it. The goal of a prescriber should therefore not be to gatekeep access to the medication, but to manage its dosage and monitor patients for positive outcomes from healthy usage of the medication.

api 3y ago
We should have easy to obtain or even OTC Vyvanse or some similar stimulant that is abuse resistant. (Vyvanse is turned into amphetamine in the liver, rate limiting absorption.) It would probably help a lot of people and at the same time reduce the number who get into dangerous street stims like meth. Low dose time release Vyvanse would probably be no worse than a lot of caffeine or these energy drinks full of megadoses of taurine and stuff. Amphetamine is actually not that dangerous if taken at reasonable doses and not abused. Street meth is impure, uncontrolled in dose, and delivered without proper packaging.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  I'm ADHD and I respond terribly to amphetamine (or Vyvanse). On low doses I become more irritable (or in my wife's words "an asshole"), and the one time I took a higher dose (at the instruction of my psychiatrist because I wasn't getting a therapeutic effect at the lower dose), I had a manic episode and was awake for 36 hours straight. Finally settled on Focalin as working for me, but every time we changed insurance companies I had to spend a few hours on the phone proving to them that amphetamine doesn't work, while paying out-of-pocket until they are convinced.

Scoundreller 3y ago

> 4 in 5 tech execs are taking medications ("controlled substances"), and among that cohort 1 in 2 use them "every day or nearly every day." Is not what the survey said. The survey said (direct link: https://apn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/APN-Tech-Execs-Mini-Report-Outline-3.pdf https://apn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/APN-Tech-Execs-Mi... ): 80% are taking medications but doesn’t say only controlled medications. It then says 48% take controlled substances daily or every other day. It also states 31% have increased their controlled substances as a direct consequence of AI, which I find suspect.

TechBro8615 3y ago
We should also consider the baseline [0]. If this is a problem in America, it's not one that's isolated to the tech sector: > In 2019, 19.2% of U.S. adults received any mental health treatment in the past 12 months, including 15.8% who had taken prescription medication for their mental health and 9.5% who had received counseling or therapy from a mental health professional. That was for 2019. I expect those numbers increased significantly during and after the pandemic. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db380.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db380.htm
ttymck 3y ago
To me, it's not clear if the survey is using "medication" interchangeably with "controlled substances". As you point out: the section heading reads "medications" but all the subpoints read "controlled substances". I'd wager it's intentionally ambiguous, for hype points.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  I had the same thought, but can't imagine what else it is. I'd like to think that if these people were on cocaine, we'd at least see some of the creative irrationality that led to the more-fun aspects of the 70s and 80s. Who's making anything awesome just for the sake of doing it? Who's commissioning assassinations of business rivals? Which startup founders are trying to save their failing business by pivoting to drug smuggling? Were it weed, they'd be more chill and empathetic. They're not. Musk constantly looks like his blood pressure is through the roof. He's probably done it once or twice for spectacle (e.g. all the 4/20 stuff and that podcast) but is doing rails of Adderall the rest of the time. It explains him sleeping under his desk like that's some kind of sign of hard work. All I see is a demented bridge troll going through an Adderall crash. Shrooms? LSD? They'd be chill, happier, and trying to pivot the core business in entirely new directions every week. At least one of them would have had an epiphany and actually tried to make the world a better place. There's also no creativity to be found. Our architecture consists of baby's first shapes. Our car colors are every shade of baby shit. America (and the internet) has never been more sterile. Reddit has always looked like a corporate portal. I'm convinced it's all Adderall for all of these people, and the ambiguity in verbiage comes from it not all being legally obtained. It's not prescribed medication at that point, it's just a controlled substance they are in unlawful possession of.

mercurialsolo 3y ago

I would love to also know how many tech execs meditate to extend creativity. We have long since endeavored to push the boundary on creativity and performance - from pills to sensory deprivation tanks, to extreme adventure to BM like experiences. You can club a wide range of things under pills. Supplementation is an essential part of health and without concrete stats and evidence this is just sensationalism. Would be super interested in knowing though - How much of the community here leans in on pills vs supplements vs meditation?

petercooper 3y ago

One of Matt Levine's recent columns was about this topic too: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-06-27/silicon-valley-is-on-drugs https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-06-27/silico...

taeric 3y ago

With the amount of aspirin and ibuprofen that is sold, I would love to see a similar story on how much folks pop standard pain medications. I'm always baffled at the impressively large sizes those bottles come in. And since I don't know the shelf life of them, I'm very doubtful that the bottle I bought a decade ago is the one i should still be using. (I'm not doubtful enough to care when I have a bad headache, of course...)

gms7777 3y ago
The expiration date on most medications functions differently than the expiration date on something like food. It's more about effectiveness than it is about safety. It's the date that the manufacturer can guarantee full potency of the drug. After this date, the drug may have lost some potency. However the vast majority of drugs are still effective, even 15 years after the expiration date [1], if they've been stored correctly. There are some exceptions which either degrade quickly or can gain toxicity post expiration (e.g., nitorglycerin, insulin, liquid antibiotics, biologics), but something like ibuprofen would generally be safe even years after expiration though it may be marginally less effective. [1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/drug-expiration-dates-do-they-mean-anything https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/drug-expirati...

ipnon 3y ago

If these people are tech execs, then presumably they are extremely productive members of the economy. What does it matter what they do in private? If you’re an avid unicyclist it should have no bearing on your appearance of respectability unless you’re skipping work to unicycle or unable to work because of unicycle injuries.

mschuster91 3y ago
> If these people are tech execs, then presumably they are extremely productive members of the economy. First of all, executives rarely are productive members of the economy - the value is created by the exploitation of those below them in the ranks. > What does it matter what they do in private? Because what they do as a consequence of snorting cocaine and whatnot has consequences on society at large - mass unemployment events, destroying everything around them with their sheer scale (such as Walmart is infamous for), or ruining entire neighborhoods, even entire cities like AirBnB did.
- ipnon 3y ago
  In the spirit of friendly discussion, would you be able to acknowledge that the leaders of company being unproductive and exploitative is not a mainstream theory of the economy? Would you be able to acknowledge that you are equating riding unicycles outside of work with economic recession and urban decay? To be frank I found this comment disturbing because it is arguing against me from a line of reasoning I do not hold.

renewiltord 3y ago

Yep, this is a good thing. Those placed at highest leverage burning at max engines during their productive time is ideal for society. Good stuff.

abeppu 3y ago

> 3 in 4 say that recent layoffs, and the future risk of AI replacing their roles, have negatively affected their health. I'm glad the execs also have this fear; it shouldn't just be ICs and contractors who are afraid. I think we've all known execs who appear to add very little value, who have a very shallow understanding of the areas they oversee, and who seem to repeatedly create the appearance of success off of other people's work in order to move to a new role to start the cycle again. I'm not saying we're yet ready to replace them with LLMs, but perhaps we're not so far away either.