Counterfeit Eclipse Glasses Pose a Risk

 

If you are planning to watch all or any of the solar eclipse next week, please plan to do so safely. I am sure everyone knows that this means watching either on a pinhole projection box or wearing special protective glasses. Unfortunately, there have been many credible reports of companies selling counterfeit products labeled as if they conform to international safety standards, including online marketplaces like Amazon and Ebay.

We can hope that there is a special place in Hell reserved for those who would knowingly sell products that could do serious damage to an unsuspecting customer's vision. It would need to be a large space because there apparently are a lot of them.

Here is a deeper dive into this possibly serious problem along with a list of reliable vendors actually approved by the American Astronomical Society. Or you could just follow NASA's recommendation and make your own projector box.

Either way, make sure that you, your family and your friends are safe as you enjoy the spectacle. 

We Should Have Higher Taxes!

 

Don't get me wrong here. I don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else does. Especially when I see how the government spends my money for me. But I am starting to warm to the idea of targeted consumption taxes intended to place the burden of societal costs on those who create those burdens.

Let's consider cigarette smoking as one example. In the United States, cigarettes are taxed at both the federal and state levels, in addition to any state and local sales taxes and local cigarette-specific taxes. There is no doubt that this is burdensome upon and unpopular among smokers. In New York State for example, a pack of cigarettes costs about $10 and roughly half of that cost is taxes. 

But here is the thing. Smoking imposes a very high cost on society, and I am expected to pay that cost through my own taxes, even though I don't smoke. Cigarette smoking cost the United States more than $600 billion in 2018 alone, including:

• More than $240 billion in healthcare spending
• Nearly $185 billion in lost productivity from smoking-related illnesses and health conditions
• Nearly $180 billion in lost productivity from smoking-related premature death
• $7 billion in lost productivity from premature death from secondhand smoke exposure.

As high as cigarette taxes may seem to smokers, in fact they raise less than $12 billion a year, leaving the other $588 billion for you and I to pay.

A consumption tax like that on cigarettes shifts at least some of the tax burden from society to those who create the costs through their consumption. No one is forced to pay this tax; no one is forced to smoke. Nor are they forbidden from doing so. They are just asked to contribute more to the costs their choice imposes on me.

This brings me around to my point (at last!). While tobacco use indeed imposes a steep cost on society, it pales in comparison to the costs imposed by over-consumption of sugar. A 2013 report estimated those costs as "in excess" of $1 trillion annually. Now, unlike cigarettes, I do consume sugar so taxing it would affect me directly. But I DO have control over how much of it I choose to consume. And in any case, if I think smokers should be financially responsible for the damage caused by their consumption of tobacco then I should also be help to account for the cost of my sugar habit.

Over 100 countries impose taxes on sugar already and have seen reductions in consumption as high as 30%. Such a reduction in the US would have huge and favorable impacts on rates of diabetes, obesity, heart disease and some cancers with concurrent reductions in healthcare spending. No one would be forced to stop consuming sugar and sugary products, only to pay more for the costs they are imposing on others.

When it comes to sugar, we should have higher taxes.

The Ozempic Craze

 

Ozempic is a brand of the generic drug semaglutide that is currently FDA-approved to treat patients with Type-2 Diabetes by controlling their blood sugar levels. It also curbs appetite, making it an effective weight-loss drug for people with obesity-related illnesses. Unfortunately, this has made it very much in demand for people looking to lose a little weight for cosmetic reasons. 

So what is the problem with that? 

As various celebrities endorse its off-label use for weight loss, demand has soared to the point of creating artificial shortages of the drug for the people who actually need it. The ethical issue of consuming a drug you do not need at the expense of those who do aside, there are other problematic issues with using Ozempic this way.

Like any hot new “miracle drug,” it’s worth considering the risks—whether that’s “Ozempic face,” the term for someone becoming especially gaunt, or the fact that one recent study of semaglutide found that one third of the weight loss came from muscle, bone mass and lean tissue and not fat. As is often the case for drugs that cause weight loss, the effects regulating diet and portion control generally last only as long as people actively take it. In other words, as soon as you stop taking it, you start regaining the weight you lost. At $935 a dose, that is no small consideration.

Anytime you see the word "craze" popping up regularly, its time to take a closer look. You can do that here.

If you want to lose weight, just do it the safe, healthy and sustainable way - the same way you gained it - slow and steady. If I can lose weight and keep it off anyone can. Its not complicated. Its just not always quick and easy. And for some people that seems to be a deal breaker.