I was watching the television show The First 48 and a guy they were interviewing said something that really hit home with me. The detective was trying to get the guy to talk about a murder, that he was possibly a witness to or had information about, by making him feel like he was doing "good" for his community and this would help make his community a "safer" place. The possible witness was a super at the apartment complex where the murder took place. The witness told the detective, and this is not a direct quote, that they lived in two different worlds, the witness said he has to live there and he sees the drug deals go down, he sees the dealers with guns, and that if he were to get to telling then what would stop him from ending up like this guy who was murdered.

That is a good question, the answer is no one, no one would be motivated in a place or situation like that to step up and get someone in trouble that has no regard for human life. The dealers have a gun for two reasons, one is self defense, and the other is intimidation. So nothing would stop them from killing someone who was trying to get them in trouble and stop them from making money. Then you have to look at how this effects the community, ok this guy tried to be the savior of a neighborhood and look where it got him, six feet under. Who is going to be inspired by this martyr, and try to step up in his place to make the hood better? No one, because no one wants to die.

So now that guy is forgotten, the martyr does'nt truely acheive martyrdom. Now, put yourself in the drug dealers position. How can you expect a person with possibly no family structure, and no family wealth of any kind, to not try to make the most money they can by exploiting their enviroment. Please do not get me wrong I do not agree with selling crack or any other drug, but I can't say that if I was in their shoes that I wouldn't do the same thing. Not to mention if you have a family to feed, I'm sorry but minimum wage just don't cut it.

 OK so lets take another look from a different angle. Drugs are harmful to a persons body. So is fat filled greasy hamburgers and fries from a fast food facility. Who is worse? If I stand on the same corner as the person selling crack and sell greasy, fatty hamburgers could you really tell the difference in the harm the product does to a person? I had someone say to me that I didn't make since because crack is addicting and fast food is not addicting. Not so fast. Fast food is cheap, easy to find, and gets into your hands quickly. How is that not addicting? If a person is hungry and has one hour for lunch, do you really think they are going to go home take 15 minutes to cook a healthy meal then 20 minutes to eat that healthy meal? The answer is no for MOST people. Most people will say that takes to long even though they have plenty of time to cook that healthy meal and will skip out to get that fast food fix.

Now, back to the title. The ink of a scholar puts restrictions on both drugs and fast food. Which in the long run makes the food healthier and drugs harder to find. Not only that but it drives fear into the hearts of ones who would possibly use those drugs, and the scholar always lives to write another day. The scholar gets more time to pass the knowledge on to another human or groups of humans, therefore has more worth in society that a martyr ever will. Again, don't get me wrong I believe everyone should have freedom, but I agree that regulations are good because without laws and rules we all would kill each other. There would be total chaos.