New York's former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, known for his obsession with paternalistic policies such as banning Big Gulps, or even just the arrogant statement that sin taxes' regressive effect on poor people is good because they lack the proper education, has continued being active in the world of public health through Bloomberg Philanthropies.
The charity arm of Bloomberg, to which he has pledged the majority of his wealth, estimated at over $50 billion, is highly political.
A reasonable assumption would be that a foundation focused on improving public health would support research into curing cancer, investigating rare diseases and orphan drugs, or alleviating the pain and suffering of American patients. After all, if the ambition of giving back to the country in which he amassed his billions were to be the goal, that would appear to be a laudable action.
However, Bloomberg has just continued his nonsensical political battles in the nonprofit world and expanded all around the world. Its latest obsession: (misguided) tobacco control in Vietnam.
In late November, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam passed a law that would ban nicotine alternatives such as vapes and heated tobacco products. Together with the World Health Organization (WHO), Bloomberg Philanthropies "supported" — most likely meaning financially — efforts to ban safer nicotine products.
Curiously, conventional cigarettes, with all the adverse health effects we have all known about for many decades, remain both legal and sold by Vietnam's own billion-dollar state-owned tobacco monopoly, Vinataba. With its 12,000+ employees and $8 billion in revenue, which is about 12% of Vietnam's yearly tax revenue, the Vietnam National Tobacco Company is a not-so-insignificant money collector for the state.
So, while Bloomberg and the WHO sell this as a victory for public health, officials in Hanoi are more likely to view it as a means of neutralizing competition in its monopoly.
The question is: While the Vietnamese state might have something to gain from a financial decision veiled as a public health boost, why does Bloomberg support a measure that drives people away from devices that help people quit smoking and bring them back to conventional cigarettes?
We need not look for any particular conspiracy here; it's not money that the New York billionaire needs more of. His charitable foundation is nothing but the elongated arm of his paternalistic and ideological obsession.
Whether it's sugar, fat, or nicotine, the public health brigade stops at nothing to regulate choices they deem unhealthy.
But at least for sugar and fat, there's a case to be made that they aren't healthy choices to begin with. The public utility of a Big Gulp is that as a consumer, I want to have it, not that I need it, and yes, in a free society, that needs to be enough of a reason to keep it.
Sugar, like any other product, can be consumed in moderation. However, the substitution effect of nicotine alternatives like vapes and heaters goes beyond that because they help people quit harmful cigarettes. E-cigarettes are around 95% less harmful than conventional cigarettes, according to Public Health England, and thus serve a public health objective instead of worsening it.
The problem is that while in developed countries, there are institutions and think tanks able to counterbalance the influence of Bloomberg's vast array of ideological lobbying for the Nanny State, developing nations are much less equipped to do so in the absence of sufficient public debate. This makes them easy targets for the former New York mayor.
As Michelle Minton lays out in a blog post, the American nonprofit Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK), which is funded by Bloomberg, is actively drafting legislation of lobbying for similar types of restrictions on nicotine alternatives in the Philippines, Ukraine, Bosnia, Latin American countries, as well as Africa.
Countries face differing challenges in reducing their smoking rates, which is why they all pursue different policies. Having an American billionaire steamrolling their sometimes legitimate efforts to improve public health with an ideological approach that will backfire, is not just counterproductive, it might very well be the most unhealthy approach of all.
Bill Wirtz is the senior policy analyst at the Consumer Choice Center, focusing on new technology, agriculture, trade and lifestyle regulations. He recently published "No Copy-paste: What Not to Emulate from Europe's Agriculture Regulations." Read Bill Wirtz's Reports — More Here.