James Hurman, a 30-year-old man from Auckland, N.Z., is selling his smoking habit to the highest bidder. (Apparently, he hasn’t run across StickK, or been offered a 0 percent interest bank account to quit.)
Here’s what Hurman has to say for himself:
I’ve smoked cigarettes for twelve years and I’ve tried all the usual ways to quit smoking. Now that my wife Annabel and I are pregnant with our first child, it’s time to give up once and for all.
I’ve created a listing on the New Zealand online auction site trademe.co.nz, and on Monday 31 March, 2008, the highest bidder will receive a contract written by my lawyer, Chris Hoquard at Dominion Law, in which I hand over my right to smoke to them, and agree to pay them a forfeit of NZ$1000.00 [about $800 USD] per cigarette that I smoke at any time following the auction’s closure.
As far as I know, this is the first time somebody has sold their smoking habit.
I will donate the proceeds from the auction to the Cancer Society of New Zealand.
Assuming this is not a hoax — after George Fox, who can you trust? — it’s an interesting exercise, although it’s unclear to me how a violation of the contract can be verified other than Hurman’s self-admission. But even if the auction per se were to fail as a commitment device, I would think Hurman’s very public announcement of his quitting smoking might do the trick.
(Hat tip: James Barrington.)
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Yet another commitment device intended to work backwards… I mean, I’d prefer an *incentive* to quit smoking to a disincentive. Initially, I thought this guy had finally got it, but alas: “I will donate the proceeds from the auction to …”
So, StickK is a neat idea and all, but if I think I’d sooner quit smoking if somebody (e.g., my health insurer) promised to *pay* me $x for every month I don’t smoke than if somebody threatened to *take* $x for every cigarette I smoke – I mean, there’s not much incentive to enlist to StickK in the first place.
Flado,
Let us not forget that even seemingly altruistic behavior is often driven by self-interest—that is to say, incentive.
NF
I think this is a brilliant idea. Having struggled with addiction myself, I can testify that disincentives work much better than incentives. By working with an incentive, there is no immediate cost, and therefore no pressing need to quit, only the opportunity cost of indulging. Anybody that has suffered an addiction and tried to quit will tell you that forgoing an ‘incentive’ to quit is always worth less than the relief of satisfying a drive as consuming as an addiction. However, losing something big (like $800) everytime you indulge will create a very pressing ‘need’ to quit and to quit NOW. With an incentive there’s always ‘next time’ to earn that incentive. With an incentive, life doesn’t change when you indulge, but with a disincentive, you lose now!
Oh, bummer.
I was excited at the prospect of being able to /increase/ someone else’s smoking habit.
“I purchased your smoking habit, and I’m increasing it to two packs a day!”
Flado: Someone will pay you $x for every month you don’t smoke… you. (Where $x is the amount you normally spend on cigarettes per month.)
If his wife shows up missing a pinky finger we’ll know that he went to Quitters, Inc.
@INT (#3): I hear you. But just maybe a bit of both incentive and disincentive could go a longer way than either on its own. E.g. – as someone suggested in a comment to another post – StickK could give (part of) the money lost by the ones who didn’t stick to the ones that did. Plus, I already have lots of disincentives – social pressure (my mom nags constantly), recent ban on smoking in pubs and on the workplace combined with unpleasant weather… All this has failed to cause even a reduction in my smoking. I cannot imagine taking yet another (ineffective, for all I know) disincentive voluntarily.
@Ryan (#5): That’s true. But let’s see… I spend about $70 a month on tobacco: not nearly enough.
Ha! That guy’s not really serious about quitting, it seems – I just read his proposed contract (see link above): it “specifically exclude[s] cigars”!
So maybe Nick (#2) is right and this is just a (commendable) fund-raising gig for the Cancer Society of NZ…