There are a number of reasons why I despise cigarette smoking. The prevailing factor has always been the evident irrationality of it. Why would any logical person do something that knowingly leads to a hasty death? Not to mention the stank, and the price, and the strain on breathing. Recently I’ve come to realize what every smoker already knows: Smoking isn’t irrational at all—it can actually be quite reasonable.
Again, the economic approach helps us grasp the logic that makes up a smoker’s mindset. If a prolonged healthy life were the goal, then smoking would be completely illogical. However, a prolonged healthy life is only part of the much larger goal of maximizing happiness. When lighting up, the smoker is weighing the pros of smoking with the cons its side-effects; then coming to the conclusion that the present happiness provided by the toxic smoke is worth more than the future happiness sacrificed. In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell reveals that on average smokers actually overestimate the ill effects of their habit by a few years. Meaning that in the above-mentioned weighing, cons are artificially heavy, yet they still choose to smoke.
This is where discounting comes into play—referring to the process of discounting future costs (or benefits) when making the decision to smoke (or not). The years lost at the end of your life are worth way less than the current years you live. Therefore, you might rationalize your choice to smoke by maximizing current happiness at the expense of the distant future. This concept is paramount in any economic cost-benefit analysis and, depending on the importance (discount rate) given to these future values, can have bounding effects on the decision.
In a way, smoking is a form of suicide. Given that the death could have been postponed, but the smoker willingly subjected himself to it. “But that’s true of everything” said Nolan (who smokes occasionally) making me dwell on the potentially destructive parts of my life. Those of you who know me personally know that I am an avid cyclist. There are serious risks in riding with traffic on a 2.3cm piece of rubber—maybe more than risks sitting around smoking Reds with friends—inevitably more immediate risks.
Although this inquisition has allowed me to ease my detest of smoking, my pros and cons still weigh on the side of not. This is likely because of the immediate effective it would likely have on my cardiovascular health, or because of the increased weight I assign to my elder years. Either way, I no longer consider the behavior irrational—just not aligned with my idea of maximizing my happiness. To that point, no behavior is irrational—just misunderstood.
Again, the economic approach helps us grasp the logic that makes up a smoker’s mindset. If a prolonged healthy life were the goal, then smoking would be completely illogical. However, a prolonged healthy life is only part of the much larger goal of maximizing happiness. When lighting up, the smoker is weighing the pros of smoking with the cons its side-effects; then coming to the conclusion that the present happiness provided by the toxic smoke is worth more than the future happiness sacrificed. In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell reveals that on average smokers actually overestimate the ill effects of their habit by a few years. Meaning that in the above-mentioned weighing, cons are artificially heavy, yet they still choose to smoke.
This is where discounting comes into play—referring to the process of discounting future costs (or benefits) when making the decision to smoke (or not). The years lost at the end of your life are worth way less than the current years you live. Therefore, you might rationalize your choice to smoke by maximizing current happiness at the expense of the distant future. This concept is paramount in any economic cost-benefit analysis and, depending on the importance (discount rate) given to these future values, can have bounding effects on the decision.
In a way, smoking is a form of suicide. Given that the death could have been postponed, but the smoker willingly subjected himself to it. “But that’s true of everything” said Nolan (who smokes occasionally) making me dwell on the potentially destructive parts of my life. Those of you who know me personally know that I am an avid cyclist. There are serious risks in riding with traffic on a 2.3cm piece of rubber—maybe more than risks sitting around smoking Reds with friends—inevitably more immediate risks.
Although this inquisition has allowed me to ease my detest of smoking, my pros and cons still weigh on the side of not. This is likely because of the immediate effective it would likely have on my cardiovascular health, or because of the increased weight I assign to my elder years. Either way, I no longer consider the behavior irrational—just not aligned with my idea of maximizing my happiness. To that point, no behavior is irrational—just misunderstood.
People do many things that make them happy, despite the risks associated with them. Unlike cycling, many of these things are not healthy activities - eating junk food, drinking alcohol, going sky diving.
ReplyDeleteAlthough many people place a high priority on physical health, many others look at other aspects of their lives to find happiness. Smokers may enjoy the stress relief that a cigarette brings, or the hunger suppressant that allows them to eat less and look skinnier. They may enjoy the social acceptance from peers who smoke, or the actual taste of the cigarette.
All these factors may outweigh the health risk that may not present itself for years and years. After all, smokers can quit whenever they want, right?
Yo yo!! My first comment! Feel blessed! Well put Niko - I guess all I have to say is DUH! But, you never were a smoker. This whole argument is why the only reason why I quit was because of the near future of wrinkles! And, we all know how much I won't stand for those..
ReplyDelete