It is kind of interesting the implications of "making you feel less hungry" in terms of a general insensitivity to the bodies own signalling mechanisms, vs just a hyper convenient targeted approach that only strikes the hunger portion of the dopamine-reward mechanism.

I wonder if you can do a simple experiment between glp and non glp users where you try and measure various biological response to giving someone say $20?

Going further I wonder if it affects other responses like pain response. How long might you keep your hand on a plate warming up? I seem to remember that sort of experimental setup in my undergrad days of signing up for every psychology department experiment under the sun for beer money.

I only mean offer it to them for free so they don't have to sneak in with the assorted peptides and other compounds. Many body builders have already been using Retatrutide for a couple years for muscle definition even though it is not yet approved. I would be quite surprised if they were not already sneaking it into the prison system. Government funded, sourced and dosed should be somewhat safer than going to sketchy websites that require bitcoin and no guarantees of purity.

If I were a prison guard or warden I would be happy to encourage prisoners to use any compound that may improve their impulse control which is likely one of the root causes of their incarceration in the first place.

Tell that to the many prisoners who participated in and benefited from HIV and hepatitis vaccine trials. What a travesty it would have been if there were a blanket ban on prisoner research.

Research on prisoners is subject to stricter standards, though. From the HHS website:

> Research involving prisoners is permissible only if the research involves one or more of four permissible categories, or if the research meets the criteria described in an HHS Secretarial waiver that applies to certain epidemiological research [...]

> (i) the study of the possible causes, effects, and processes of incarceration, and of criminal behavior, and

> (ii) the study of prisons as institutional structures or of prisoners as incarcerated persons. [...]

> (iii) research on conditions particularly affecting prisoners as a class; [...]

> (iv) research on practices, either innovative or accepted, which have the intent and reasonable probability of improving the health or well-being of the subject. [...]

https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq...

There would be informed consent. We aren't the SS.

Nothing wrong with making GLP-1s freely available to all who want them if it improves metabolic health, reduces addiction, reduces cancer and inflammation risk, etc. Side effects are known and data to date shows risks are low. Ship it to everyone who wants it imho and kick off the longitudinal study.

The aggregate potential benefit is so high and the risk and cost reasonably low. Certainly, no one should ever be forced to take it, or be experimented on without their explicit, informed consent (and "experimented on" in this context is "taking the GLP-1 already and we're just tracking the outcomes at scale").

Who knows, maybe when healthy some of them could actually be fixed.