Do you think a celebrity who turns down a multi-million dollar deal solely because the organization doesn't allow him smoking weed is a reckless financial decision?
Keep in mind this definition of reckless financial decision - It entails when a person makes choices that involve significant financial risk or lack of consideration for the potential consequences.
If this is a performance related work, then it needs more context. Some celebrity feel they could perform better when they do some rituals like smoking weeds before show or other things. So, if they couldn't perform with their best because they can't smoke weed, and they just turn down the job, then it actually is the right decision, saving them from ruining their reputation that might give them even more potential financial loss because they accept a job that doesn't allow them to perform their best and then could ruin their reputation.
A good financial decision is not just about making the most money at the very moment, but how to keep our business, and our client expand and make our income stable and sutain.
That's the part we are missing, saying no to something g that you do not want to work at is not reckless at all, it's your own freedom to say no to things. It doesn't change just because you are a celebrity and you are offered a lot of money. There needs to be a line that you draw, and if you accept everything then it is not going to be something that you can accept, it is just not going to be all that crazy. We should consider it to be a lot more important on the long run at all.
I believe that we are not going to be all that easy to handle, and it is not going to be simple. We should just simply let it be and we could probably not do anything that would get crazy amount of support. We should probably make it work a lot easier.