Why not? I'm not opposing as such, just curious.
It's amphetamines. That's a recreational drug.
Yes, I am aware, and am very familiar with amphetamines and various other phenethylamines alike. I'm just curious as to how a medicine can be simultaneously necessary outside of prison and unnecessary inside. Would you apply the same logic to other prescribed substances?
Only the fun ones.
Amphetamine is fairly practical, more functional than anything, I never found it recreational as such. In controlled doses it also lacks any real whoosh that might be experienced by being engulfed in extreme levels of dopamine. I guess application and subjective response could factor into this. I'd consider serotonergic substances more recreational in general due to the difference in psychoactive effect and the emphathogenic impact they have. The example given is the equivalent of ritalin, which is an almighty boring substance, as are the analogues.
Normal US prisons NEVER-EVER give Adderall to those prescribed it. This guy is getting a crazy level of preferential treatment.
They even gave him a laptop to review his discovery evidence. The Jan 6 defendants mostly didn't even get to see their evidence, but when they did, it was in a private booth, where they'd be lucky they could even take notes and get to view evidence once or twice, rather on study it and see more than 0.005% of it.
TaseAFeminist4Jesus |4 pointswritten 7 months ago ago
No one in prison should get Adderall.