Does Elon Musk Smoke Weed? Tesla's New Robotaxi $4.20 Fee Is Allegedly a Nod to Weed Culture
Tesla has launched its new robotaxi pilot scheme in Austin, Texas, and the fare has already drawn significant attention. Each ride is priced at exactly $4.20, a number widely associated with cannabis culture.
The choice of fare has fuelled online speculation, with many suggesting it is a tongue-in-cheek reference. Given Elon Musk's history with the number 420, the move aligns with a familiar pattern often seen from the Tesla chief executive. What's Behind the $4.20 Fare
The flat-rate fare was unveiled during a Tesla event in Austin last week. The robotaxi programme allows passengers to summon a self-driving Tesla through the company's mobile app. The vehicle arrives without a driver and, at least for now, the fare is fixed.
Tesla has not provided a detailed explanation for the pricing. However, $4.20 is not a random figure. It is heavily associated with cannabis culture and has previously been used by Musk in public messaging.
In 2018, he tweeted that Tesla could go private at $420 per share. That post prompted an investigation from US regulators, resulting in a fine and restrictions on Musk's public statements. What 420 Means and Why It's Used
The number 420 originated in California in the 1970s, when a group of students used it as a code for smoking marijuana. Over time, it evolved into a broader cultural symbol, especially among internet users, tech enthusiasts, and meme creators.
In digital communities, particularly on platforms such as Reddit and X (formerly Twitter), references to 420 are often used as a nod to online culture. It has become shorthand for a kind of irreverent humour.
When Tesla set its robotaxi fare at $4.20, many believed it was a calculated choice intended to generate buzz, not simply a question of affordability. Does Elon Musk Use Cannabis?
In 2018, Musk appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, where he took a puff from a marijuana joint during a live broadcast. The moment went viral, sending Tesla's share price down and sparking renewed scrutiny from the company's board.
Musk later said cannabis does not help him work and claimed he rarely uses it. He also stated that he had to undergo random drug testing for SpaceX contracts following the podcast. Despite the controversy, the incident contributed to his reputation for unpredictable and meme-driven behaviour. What the Robotaxi Programmed Offers
The Austin-based service is part of Tesla's Full Self-Driving pilot. It is currently limited to selected users and geographic areas, with plans for wider rollout depending on demand and regulatory approval.
Riders can book a journey using the Tesla app, after which a driverless vehicle arrives at their location. There is no driver, no steering input, and no requirement to tip. The $4.20 fare is applied per ride, regardless of duration or starting point. Public Response to the Fare
Responses to the pricing have ranged from amused to sceptical. One user on X asked, 'Is the $4.20 real or just another Musk joke?' Others questioned whether the fare undermines Tesla's broader ambitions in autonomous driving.
Nonetheless, many acknowledged that the price achieves two goals. It is affordable for early adopters and guarantees attention. Within hours of the announcement, the number 420 was trending online, accompanied by memes, commentary, and speculation about Musk's intentions. Why the Detail Matters
The fare is more than a number. For critics, it highlights Musk's tendency to blur the line between corporate strategy and personal branding. For supporters, it is typical Elon: part provocation, part performance, and part of the overall brand identity.
As Tesla continues to expand its self-driving trials, future conversations will likely focus on performance, safety, and regulation. But for now, $4.20 is doing what Musk likely intended: keeping Tesla in the headlines.
Originally published on IBTimes UK
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
an hour ago
- Int'l Business Times
US Regulators Propose Looser Leverage Rules To Support Treasury Market Stability
U.S. banking regulators have unveiled a proposal to ease capital requirements on large financial institutions in an effort to bolster liquidity in the Treasury market, which has shown signs of strain in recent months. The proposal targets the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio (eSLR)—a post-2008 financial crisis safeguard that requires the largest banks to hold a set percentage of capital against all assets, including low-risk ones like U.S. Treasuries. Under the revised rule, banks would be permitted to temporarily exclude certain high-quality assets, such as Treasuries and central bank reserves, from the calculation. As reported by the Financial Times, the goal is to reduce disincentives for banks to act as intermediaries in the U.S. government bond market, especially during periods of stress. The move comes amid increased volatility in the Treasury market, driven by fiscal policy uncertainty, including repeated standoffs over the debt ceiling and speculation about future Federal Reserve interest rate cuts. According to the Wall Street Journal, regulators—including the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC—believe relaxing the leverage rule could enhance banks' capacity to absorb and distribute Treasuries, ultimately supporting price stability and smoother rate movements. While industry leaders welcomed the proposal as a step toward modernizing capital rules, critics warn it could inadvertently raise systemic risks. Financial reform advocates argue that loosening capital buffers could make the banking system more vulnerable during future downturns. "This is a clear signal of regulatory retrenchment," said a senior analyst at a Washington-based watchdog group. "It's the first meaningful rollback of Dodd-Frank-era safeguards in over a decade." The proposed rule is now open for public comment through August, with final implementation potentially slated for late 2025. If adopted, the measure would represent a significant policy shift, highlighting the balance regulators are trying to strike between financial stability and market functionality.
Int'l Business Times
5 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Does Elon Musk Smoke Weed? Tesla's New Robotaxi $4.20 Fee Is Allegedly a Nod to Weed Culture
Tesla has launched its new robotaxi pilot scheme in Austin, Texas, and the fare has already drawn significant attention. Each ride is priced at exactly $4.20, a number widely associated with cannabis culture. The choice of fare has fuelled online speculation, with many suggesting it is a tongue-in-cheek reference. Given Elon Musk's history with the number 420, the move aligns with a familiar pattern often seen from the Tesla chief executive. What's Behind the $4.20 Fare The flat-rate fare was unveiled during a Tesla event in Austin last week. The robotaxi programme allows passengers to summon a self-driving Tesla through the company's mobile app. The vehicle arrives without a driver and, at least for now, the fare is fixed. Tesla has not provided a detailed explanation for the pricing. However, $4.20 is not a random figure. It is heavily associated with cannabis culture and has previously been used by Musk in public messaging. In 2018, he tweeted that Tesla could go private at $420 per share. That post prompted an investigation from US regulators, resulting in a fine and restrictions on Musk's public statements. What 420 Means and Why It's Used The number 420 originated in California in the 1970s, when a group of students used it as a code for smoking marijuana. Over time, it evolved into a broader cultural symbol, especially among internet users, tech enthusiasts, and meme creators. In digital communities, particularly on platforms such as Reddit and X (formerly Twitter), references to 420 are often used as a nod to online culture. It has become shorthand for a kind of irreverent humour. When Tesla set its robotaxi fare at $4.20, many believed it was a calculated choice intended to generate buzz, not simply a question of affordability. Does Elon Musk Use Cannabis? In 2018, Musk appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, where he took a puff from a marijuana joint during a live broadcast. The moment went viral, sending Tesla's share price down and sparking renewed scrutiny from the company's board. Musk later said cannabis does not help him work and claimed he rarely uses it. He also stated that he had to undergo random drug testing for SpaceX contracts following the podcast. Despite the controversy, the incident contributed to his reputation for unpredictable and meme-driven behaviour. What the Robotaxi Programmed Offers The Austin-based service is part of Tesla's Full Self-Driving pilot. It is currently limited to selected users and geographic areas, with plans for wider rollout depending on demand and regulatory approval. Riders can book a journey using the Tesla app, after which a driverless vehicle arrives at their location. There is no driver, no steering input, and no requirement to tip. The $4.20 fare is applied per ride, regardless of duration or starting point. Public Response to the Fare Responses to the pricing have ranged from amused to sceptical. One user on X asked, 'Is the $4.20 real or just another Musk joke?' Others questioned whether the fare undermines Tesla's broader ambitions in autonomous driving. Nonetheless, many acknowledged that the price achieves two goals. It is affordable for early adopters and guarantees attention. Within hours of the announcement, the number 420 was trending online, accompanied by memes, commentary, and speculation about Musk's intentions. Why the Detail Matters The fare is more than a number. For critics, it highlights Musk's tendency to blur the line between corporate strategy and personal branding. For supporters, it is typical Elon: part provocation, part performance, and part of the overall brand identity. As Tesla continues to expand its self-driving trials, future conversations will likely focus on performance, safety, and regulation. But for now, $4.20 is doing what Musk likely intended: keeping Tesla in the headlines. Originally published on IBTimes UK
DW
8 hours ago
- DW
Are designer handbags linked to illegal deforestation? – DW – 06/26/2025
Leather from cattle raised in deforested areas and on Indigenous land in the northern Brazilian state of Pará is being turned into luxury items in Italy, according to an investigation. Designer brands such as Coach, Fendi, and Hugo Boss have been listed as buyers of raw materials sourced from destroyed forests in Pará, the northern Brazilian state set to host the UN Climate Conference, COP30, in November. The allegations, which most companies deny, are detailed in a report published by Earthsight, a UK-based nonprofit focused on environmental and injustice investigations. Their findings draw on thousands of records of Brazilian leather exports, data on the cattle sector, court rulings, satellite imagery, as well as interviews and on-the-ground research. "Consumers probably expect that when buying a luxury product, the high price tag guarantees some level of ethics and sustainability," Lara Shirra White, an Earthsight researcher told DW. "They don't expect that the leather bag might be linked to deforestation and human rights violations." The NGO warns of products made from the hides of cattle reared on farms embargoed for environmental violations. Including some operating illegally within Pará's Apyterewa Indigenous Territory, which was heavily deforested during Jair Bolsonaro's presidency. As part of its research, Earthsight investigated the business operations of Frigol, a Brazilian meatpacking company identified as one of the buyers of cattle raised on the territory. The report says at least 17,000 animals were sold to Frigol between 2020 and 2023, which is "enough to produce 425 tons of leather." Researchers link some of those cattle to illegal farms but say it is not possible to determine the exact number that left Apyterewa, in part because Frigol itself "does not trace most of its indirect suppliers." It says this gap in reporting leaves the company's "supply chain vulnerable to the widespread practice of 'cattle laundering,'" in which cows from illegal farms are transferred to legally registered properties before being sold. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Paulo Barreto, senior researcher at the Brazilian conservation and sustainable development Institute of Man and Environment of the Amazon (Imazon) said control over indirect suppliers is either non-existent or incomplete. "As a result, cattle raised in illegally deforested areas end up entering the market as if they were legal. The lack of a transparent public system regarding the origin of the cattle makes control difficult." Frigol, however, told DW via email that it does not purchase cattle from Indigenous lands and monitors 100% of its direct suppliers. "We are committed to working together with industry institutions, the production chain, and public authorities to make progress," the company said in a statement. Adding that it believes "only individual traceability of animals for socio-environmental purposes will make it possible to mitigate deforestation across all links of the cattle supply chain." According to the Earthsight research, after the animals are slaughtered at Frigol's facilities, a percentage of cowskins are exported. In part by the Brazilian leather company Durlicouros, which shipped 14,700 tons of hide to Italy between 2020 and 2023. Some of that, the report found, went to the European tanneries Conceria Cristina and Faeda. The research lists high-end names like Coach, Fendi, Chloé, Hugo Boss and Saint Lauren among Conceria Cristina's clients. Faeda, meanwhile, provides leather to brands such as Chanel, Balenciaga and Gucci, according to the investigation. In response to a DW request for comment, Chanel cited deforestation as a "major concern" and said it no longer works with Faeda due to unmet traceability requirements. "92% of the calfskin we use is sourced from Europe, and we audit slaughterhouses and farms outside Europe to ensure they are not in deforestation zones." The Kering Group, which owns Balenciaga, Gucci, and Saint Laurent, told DW that while the two Italian companies mentioned in the report are suppliers, "the leather they provide to any Kering house does not come from Brazil." Based on Earthsight's findings, Hugo Boss issued a statement to say it had conducted a detailed review, and could "confirm that none of the leather" it is supplied "is connected to any of the alleged parties in connection with the investigation." LVMH, which owns Fendi and Louis Vuitton, says it has a system capable of tracing the origin of 98% of the leather used in its products and that it does not source this from South America. And Tapestry, which owns the Coach brand, wrote to DW saying that while the system for tracking raw materials in Brazil is "complex and imperfect," it is working to be "part of the solution to improve traceability and transparency." Chloé, Conceria Cristina and Faeda had not responded to request for comment at the time of publication. Durlicouros told DW that it tracks its indirect suppliers and participates in discussions on state and national models for full traceability and compliance."In addition, all Durlicouros facilities are certified by the Leather Working Group (LWG), ensuring high standards of sustainability, traceability, and environmental responsibility, according to the purpose of each facility." But Earthsight researcher Lara Shirra White said companies often use the certification to vouch for the ethics and sustainability of the leather they produce "instead of conducting meaningful due diligence themselves to ensure their supply chains are deforestation-free." She says the problem with the LWG, founded in 2005, is that "it does not require traceability back to the farms," and can therefore not account for environmental and human rights abuses in the areas where the cattle are raised. The LWG told DW it is enhancing its "due diligence requirements related to deforestation and land conversion,' which will "include establishing a chain of custody system that would support more detailed traceability across the leather value chain." There is some hope that the European Union's Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) could make a contribution to change. Due to come into effect at the end of this year after a 12-month delay, it will ban the purchase of products originating from destroyed forest areas. "We hope the law will be implemented on schedule, despite certain sectors of the industry still trying, in some way, to exclude leather from the scope of the legislation," Rafael Pieroni, a researcher at Earthsight, told DW. But he said the report also contains a message for the Brazilian government. "It should implement traceability and make all data public. Transparency is the best way to avoid all the illegalities we are exposing in our investigation."
