Drugs, deals & DTC

I was watching a Seahawks game and noticed how many sports betting ads there were. Every commercial break, sometimes even the regular breaks, had a sportsbook promo. The volume has gone up noticeably over the past two years. I enjoy poker myself, probably too much sometimes, so this isn't a moral critique. But it got me thinking about hedonistic desires and how they might play out over a career in finance.

Work culture in large urban centers is status-focused and fast-moving. Drug use, heavy drinking, and gambling show up as if they're part of the job, without much thought given to the longer-term impact on individuals or firms. Most discussions of work culture focus on the team level. I want to think about hedonism more broadly. I'm still refining my views on this.

Hedonism and why it keeps showing up

Hedonism is people chasing pleasure, stimulation, and fast rewards. It persists because modern life makes these rewards easy to access and easy to justify. Whether it's gambling, drugs, alcohol, or smaller everyday habits, the pattern is the same: the immediate payoff is prioritized, even when the long-term costs are clear.

Even when people are aware of those costs, they can't fully internalize them in the moment. Very few people can accurately price future consequences against present reward. This preference for smaller rewards now over larger rewards later is common knowledge, but what matters is that these behaviors are reinforced in environments that already reward short-term wins. That combination of human wiring and industry structure is why hedonism keeps showing up, and finance is the most visible case.

Why finance culture leans into it

Finance leans into hedonism because the job itself runs on dopamine spikes. People are rewarded for chasing, staying sharp under pressure, and grinding through long stretches of work. It's not surprising that habits offering quick relief become attractive.

The hours are brutal, especially early on. When someone is pulling late nights every week, stimulants or other shortcuts are hard to resist. From what I've seen, it's often less about partying and more about functioning.

Alcohol is embedded directly into the job. Client dinners, closing parties, team events, and even some formal meetings revolve around drinking. Opting out can feel like opting out of the culture entirely, and over time that can create dependency.

Status plays a role too. Working until 3 a.m. and still showing up sharp the next morning is treated as table stakes. Partying hard and acting unaffected is normalized, and most people don't want to be the outlier who leaves early or says no. That pressure reinforces itself and becomes expectation. The industry also attracts people who enjoy risk and competition, and that appetite doesn't turn off after market close. Gambling or other vices can feel consistent with the identity you build at work.

The consequence of short-term highs

Short-term highs feel good in isolation but stack hidden costs over time. A stimulant might get someone through a model, but it degrades sleep and judgment the next day. A night of drinking might build camaraderie at a client dinner, but it shows up as slower thinking the following morning. Each event feels manageable on its own. The problem is repetition.

The biggest cost to firms isn't missed hours, it's lower-quality work that still gets shipped. Finance is detail-heavy and small errors cascade, so when people are exhausted or recovering, those mistakes are harder to catch.

The lifestyle looks manageable at twenty-two. By twenty-seven, many people are burned out. Firms accept this because of the steady supply of talent, but turnover carries real cost. Training cycles repeat, institutional knowledge leaks out, and the culture weakens over time.

New analysts and interns absorb what they see. If stimulants, alcohol, and gambling are normalized, they become part of what the job is perceived to require, and performance becomes less about clarity and more about endurance. Someone might deliver excellent work one day and come in flat the next, and that inconsistency makes teams harder to rely on. The cumulative cost of fixing mistakes and double-checking work adds up quickly, even if it's hard to measure directly.

Where I stand

I don't think I'll ever have a fixed view on this. Hedonism in finance looks different depending on where you are in life, and I expect my perspective to change with experience.

Right now I can see how culture shapes behavior and how that behavior affects long-term output, but I don't think there's a single clean conclusion to draw. Maybe I'll see people burn out quickly, or maybe I'll see others manage it and still succeed. I'll probably find my own line for what's sustainable.

This topic doesn't have a clean answer. It touches human wiring, firm economics, and personal preference all at once, and my stance is less a conclusion than a decision to pay attention and let experience do the rest.