Most would probably believe that your question is inane, since Viagra is legal with a prescription, and we're talking about taxpayers buying sex drugs for convicted sex offenders.
The parallels between that and allowing law abiding citizens to spend their own money on the drug of their choice exist only in your own head.
I think the drug was crack, not Viagra.
Since you put it that way, where is the line to be drawn on what taxpayers are supposed to provide for criminals? Is it okay to provide methadone for heroin addicts? Antabuse for alcoholics?
Perhaps, but I was wondering what they thought of this particular situation. Should the man have been denied a prescription for this particular drug given his behavioral background? I'm not sure where they'd fall on that issue.
By your post it sounds like your concern was not so much that the man was given a prescription, but that it was paid for by our tax dollars. Is that the case?