Drug use at work isn’t biohacking. It’s workaholism

That’s a dangerous recipe.

Many of the professionals using illicit substances are working long hours and feel like they don’t have time to unwind, exercise, or connect with friends or family. That can fuel a desire for a quick fix to feel better, Iannucci says. Or they’re looking for something to help them keep working.

The individualism prized at the upper echelons of American business may also play a role in discouraging healthier coping mechanisms. At an organisation’s highest levels, “there’s a culture of managing things on your own, going your own way, solving problems yourself or being able to power through problems,” he says.

Some management theorists have even suggested that, in the future, we’ll all be on substances of one kind or another at work.

That can increase the appeal of self-medicating, as opposed to dialling back or delegating more. And Americans, in particular, associate busyness with status.

As for the executives who turn to drugs like psychedelics to improve their creativity, they may think of themselves as “biohacking”, but I see a kind of insecurity – a fear that their innate human ingenuity isn’t enough.

In this light, corporate drug use looks more like a workaholism problem masquerading as a drug problem, or perhaps a workaholism problem that has metastasised into a drug problem.

Alternatively, it’s possible that workaholism is not the cause of substance use problems, but a kind of fellow traveller. Work, drugs and alcohol – all can create a kind of white noise that muffles, but never silences, one’s inner demons. (Speaking of alcohol, it’s also worth remembering that liquor is by far the biggest problem in corporate America, even as public attention turns to novel substances.)

Successful entrepreneurs and C-suite leaders also tend to over-index on impulsivity and risk-taking, says Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a business psychology professor at University College London and Columbia University. It’s tough to be a visionary leader if you’re unwilling to defy the status quo. Trifling rules – like certain substances being illegal – might seem like yet more regulatory red tape to be ignored.

That’s particularly likely to be true in Silicon Valley, with its business culture that prizes velocity and daring. Facebook may have officially abandoned “move fast and break things” in 2014, but the ethos continues to have outsize influence – and not only in the tech sector.

It’s easy to see how a smart, successful person could rationalise use of illicit substances, or licit substances used illicitly (like Adderall without a prescription). Some management theorists have even suggested that, in the future, we’ll all be on substances of one kind or another at work, and that we’ll think no more about it than we do about snagging a cup of tea to overcome that post-lunch slump.

But there are serious differences, Iannucci says, between taking prescription drugs under a doctor’s care and experimenting with substances, particularly those that aren’t legal or regulatory approved, on your own.

I won’t argue for a return to the era of drug shaming. But more restraint would be healthy. CEOs and senior executives should follow the law. Expectations for hours worked should follow the human body’s natural limits. And those who want to improve their creativity and productivity should follow their doctor’s advice – not a drug dealer’s.

Bloomberg Opinion