Why do you think this? I agree that people who have associated risk factors should be prioritized, but if there's enough for everyone why wouldn't we give it to anyone who wants it?
And crowing about saving $200/mo not buying food at Starbucks, well now Novo Nordisk is getting that.
Toast a bagel at home for $0.50/day instead.
I do not agree that people who don't "need" to be chronically medicated should not be. I think you can decide to take whatever you want for your own reasons. I am not going to tell you what you can and and can't take - unless you're like...taking something that makes you destructive or generate externalities or whatever. But this seems like the opposite?
Lots of questions here around profit and the awful medical system in the US, but on a basic level I think people should be able to do what they prefer and is safe.
If they're like typical westerners, they already self-medicate with coffee every day, with alcohol occasionally, and a big fraction of them (though much less than couple decades ago) also treat themselves with tobacco smoke - and ironically, weight loss is one of the few benefits some people actually use to defend their smoking.
Do they need all that medication? Well, it's socially unfavorable to say so wrt. alcohol, but ask any of the daily coffee drinkers whether they need their morning coffee...
So, sure, we don't know the long term risks of semaglutide ("just" 30 years or so) — but I say let people try it if they want, we let them use things we explicitly know to be dangerous, so why should we stand in the way of something that only might be eventually?
I buy Thomas Everything bagels at the supermarket, FWIW.
Those concerns have nothing to do with the fact that it's ok for people to choose to start or stop medications if they would prefer (supplies allowing).
This is being injected directly into your flesh, there cannot be any mistake, or shortcut.