> Now he gets to live out the rest of his life fighting cravings, telling himself he's not allowed to enjoy food. How utterly sad.

I don't understand what drives people to write such intentionally asinine comments. Do you get off on hurting others or something?

There were quite a few foods I let go of when I decided to drop weight. Can't say I miss them much, certainly not to the extent to say something like "wow, i can't enjoy food anymore" or "now i'm fighting cravings all the time!!". And I legitimately have no interest in reintegrating them into my diet.

Turns out, some kinds of food are just dumb to consume, and my enjoyment of them is legitimately secondary. To the extent that discovering how harmful they were, they became inherently less enjoyable, and it was well possible for the habits and the cravings to subside over time. You don't try to go hit a balance with crack addiction, why would you try to hit a balance consuming 5 bazillion calorie rubbish?

Cutting out certain classes of foods from one's diet is absolutely possible and there's nothing necessarily wrong with it.

"No free lunch" is a reasonable question to ask when evaluating medication, if it would improve the evolutionary fitness of the majority of people. I think this is behind some of the skepticism. If Ozempic is so great then how come our bodies don't just produce more GLP-1? How come we aren't like chimps, with eternally shredded bodies and cheese grater abs, provided we get the protein to support them?

I would guess that getting fat in times of plenty was a feature and not a bug in the ancestral environment, and that's why we get fat today, which is obvious if you think about it. Still, it means GLP-1 agonists are smacking into quick "is it bullshit?" heuristics for a lot of people.

The second point I haven't seen discussed is that weight loss drugs prior to GLP-1 agonists include cigarettes, which (worst case) give you cancer; stimulants, which cause your heart to fail; parasitic intestinal worms, which can kill you but more importantly are just plain gross; and mitochondrial uncouplers, which set you on fire at a cellular level. That's a long history of miracle weight loss drugs which turn out to have horrible side effects. It's not reasonable to think GLP-1 is bad just because of other drugs with different mechanisms, but it certainly causes some skepticism anyway.

I helped my dad lose 50 lbs by finally, after 10 years, getting him to give up bread, sugar, potatoes. It took buying him 2 months of a bluetooth glucose monitor. Once he saw what certain foods do, he believed me finally. At 65 years old, healthier than I remember since he was 40 and I was a teen. It doesn't require some weird injection.

You missed the point. At the LEO level, laws are definitely being enforced

Overly broad title - the rule of "law" is doing just fine at lower levels. Just ask anybody with excess melanin or X chromosomes how the law's doing... At the highest level, no, there's no law at the moment, only whim's.

> You'll probably need to bail out recent homebuyers, who will be permanently underwater

If you buy a house for $400k, and suddenly it is worth $300k, you don't need to be "bailed out" for your purchase decision. You should have been certain that the house was worth $400k to you at the time of purchase. Otherwise you're a speculator, and we shouldn't be bailing out speculators.

It's called buyer's remorse. We accept it when it's a car or a TV, but suddenly when it's a house we're supposed to give massive government support to correct the buyer's mistake?