Last week the WSJ reported he "microdoses ketamine for depression and takes larger doses at parties". Such a revelation would typically result in the loss of an individual's security clearance. He has previously been investigated for using marijuana and did not lose his clearance. Ketamine, however, is taken much more seriously.
Related questions
Still no clear resolution criteria on this market. Sounds like @BTE wants to N/A this if there's no news of an investigation. ✌️
@Aboczjr I dont think he would n/a that. If there's no news of an investigation, he would resolve this as no.
Ketamine is Schedule III, marijuana is Schedule I. Presumably Musk has a personal physician writing bespoke prescriptions for him like MJ had for propofol. Why do you think ketamine will be taken much more seriously?
@Brooster I think the idea on why ketamine would be taken more seriously may be due to the effects that it has on the person. When used as prescribed by a doctor, the effects that occur are expected; but when taken recreationally, or in excess, the effects like hallucinations, being unable to move, stuck in a k-hole or k-holing (hallucinating + being unable to move), difficulty walking, disjointed body movements, issues urinating, (I think there are more but this is what I can list for now)
If he's taking it recreationally, depending on his source, may add cut to it and depending on what that is, it can add other effects to it.
It may just be the stories that surround this type of drug (k-holes, date rape) but I think that is why it would be looked into more than marijuana.
In my opinion, ketamine isn't as accepted to be used recreationally as marijuana.
I feel like the most obvious scenario for NO isn't being raised: it already happened as Musk, not being pointlessly stupid for once, disclosed whatever he's doing on the relevant paperwork and got cleared
@CodeandSolder That would actually be a case for N/A. Can’t be a no if it happened in the past.
That would absolutely be a no. "Will [future tense] the US government open [i.e. begin] an investigation"?
@jacksonpolack It says by the end of 2023. If it had already happened and the news is just slowly leaking out it should resolve YES. It’s unlikely we are going to even learn the dates of such an investigation but rather just its existence. I am so regretting this fucking idea.
A week before? lean yes. 2020? strong no. idk. maybe leave it up to a resolution council of trustworthy users if something weird goes on. six months ago ... still lean no tbh
@BTE if it happened with voluntary disclosure a long time ago it would be odd if it leaked now IMO
@BTE his very expensive SpaceX legal team paid to get him the clearance got him a psychiatrist to sign off on a treatment plan including using ketamine at parties, told him to put "I have a treatment plan including using ketamine at parties, see attached" in the relevant form, no investigation needed
@CodeandSolder Routine security clearance paperwork wouldn't count as "an investigation," surely?
@Jai Honestly I am still thinking about it. I didn’t give enough consideration to the nuance which is why I also created the same market for 2024.
@BTE Surely it must be NO. How else will this resolve NO? If there is a news story that there is no investigation? That will never happen.
Yeah, it has to resolve no, 'musk is not being investigated for drugs' isn't going to happen
What does news reporting have to do with this at all?
Either there will be an investigation which would have a hearing and official documentation and paperwork and stuff and this resolves yes, or there's no investigation and it resolves no.
I get that we would most likely find out about the investigation through the news, but it should not be tied to the criteria.
@Odoacre Well as far as I can tell these things are privately conducted. But they leak information. Idk I am starting to regret creating this market and it’s still only September. Ugh.
@BTE I'm also firmly on team NO and staked my position on that assumption for the same reasons as others have stated: because otherwise it's almost impossible for this to resolve NO. It was only now that I considered that the market didn't explicitly refer to publicly observable outcomes or their absence, hence the clarification question.
I'm obviously biased at this point, but I do genuinely think it's the right call. It's probably also a good idea to update the description to include some criteria (something like "YES if acknowledged by the US government or a consensus of media sources, otherwise NO".)
One additional edge case to consider: Musk claims this is happening but there are no other sources confirming the story. Paranoia, lying, and degrees of psychosis are things. Not extremely likely things, but given the subject matter of this market they should probably be taken into account ahead of time anyway. There are a few possible policies here and I think I know what I'd choose, but the important thing is that the rule is common knowledge as early as possible.
