The War on Drugs

Are you for or against this war to erradicate drugs and make sure the American people are "safe", especially from terrible, life threatening substances such as marijuana and magic mushrooms? (You can see my stance)


I'll start by saying that marijuana is harmless and should not be illegal. If we did legalize it, the economy could be boosted from profit.

I do not endorse the use of cocaine, heroine, or any real hard drug that is not natural. Should those remain illegal? I do not think so BUT I will not be using once it does become legal.

What are your thoughts on drugs or specifically this war?

See also:

http://www.casualdiscourse.com/forum...ead.php?t=6393

http://www.casualdiscourse.com/forum...ead.php?t=4272

I took MDMA for the first time a couple of weeks ago. Everything went spacey for about 20 minutes and then me and my friend had a long interesting conversation about her life while we hugged incessantly. My mouth was very dry.

There is literally no reason for it to be illegal other than the obvious purity issues (which could easily be solved via legality).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Scarf

See also:

http://www.casualdiscourse.com/forum...ead.php?t=6393

http://www.casualdiscourse.com/forum...ead.php?t=4272

---

That was two years ago. A lot is going on in the recent news.

White House petition to legalize marijuana. Over 70,000 signatures. Is promised a response.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition...cohol/y8l45gb1

A record 50% of Americans support legalization. Brand new poll

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/Re...Marijuana.aspx


Made a new thread because I wanted to bring new information to the table.

I think there are many people on this forum who would support it, and I'm not going to disagree with them. I think the issue comes down to personal responsibility. The legalization and regulation of substances will inherit the problems of alcohol and smoking and maybe create whole new ones, but I think with education and a constant focus on alternatives to drug use that they could be tolerated or accepted. Maybe not in my lifetime but in some future society.

I abhor and pity those who need drugs to get by but don't confuse that for insensitivity to their plight and addiction. I'm incredibly jealous of those who use them to create great things. I'm somewhere inbetween on the fence. I drink and smoke and in my opinion not to excess, but I'd like to think I can go on and accomplish things that I can be proud of and things that will help others or influence them in a positive way without the use or having to resort to drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lol

That was two years ago. A lot is going on in the recent news.

White House petition to legalize marijuana. Over 70,000 signatures. Is promised a response.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition...cohol/y8l45gb1

A record 50% of Americans support legalization. Brand new poll

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/Re...Marijuana.aspx


Made a new thread because I wanted to bring new information to the table.

---

This isn't new information.

This is new white noise to cloud an intellectual discussion. Popular opinion has absolutely no influence on logical discourse.

I haven't smoked pot in 18 years but I don't oppose the legalization of it.

Heroine = Wonder Woman
Heroin= Illegal Narcotic

I'm for the legalization of Marijuana, but nothing else.

It's less harmful than Tobacco and Alcohol, and other than in shittty drug deals when was the last time you died from smoeking dongs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmoscheer

This isn't new information.

This is new white noise to cloud an intellectual discussion. Popular opinion has absolutely no influence on logical discourse.

---

How is this information not new or helpful? It is telling me as the reader that the American population is tired of the government perusing this War on Drugs and in this specific case, marijuana. It is telling me that as a whole, the American people are becoming more educated on the matter of illegal substances and have read at some point the positives of Marijuana or maybe some other drug.

I know those links are not concrete facts about all drugs but when new information is available related to a topic, how could you dismiss it all together? The fact that there is a petition to legalize means nothing? No logical discussion can come from that?

Or from the new polls?

Give me a break.

There are petitions for all sorts of ridiculous shit so no, it does not matter. Just because a lot of people think something should be so and they sign something acknowledging that does not mean it should be so.

I'm not against certain drugs being legalised (as I said) but don't be an idiot.

I would also like to see Marijuana legalized, and taxed. There's hundreds - maybe even thousands - of studies that show it's just as safe, if not safer than Tobacco and Alcohol.

It'd provide a good income stream for state revenue, and would reduce the amount of people in our jails by a pretty high rate.

Unfortunately, I'm under the impression that there's no reliable test to check the levels of THC in someone's blood and I think operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of said substance is a Really Bad Idea<tm> (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I have no personal experience in the matter).

The War on Drugs costs this country billions of dollars in taxpayer money. If we're going to cut programs, that should be one of the first to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaiTengu

I would also like to see Marijuana legalized, and taxed. There's hundreds - maybe even thousands - of studies that show it's just as safe, if not safer than Tobacco and Alcohol.

It'd provide a good income stream for state revenue, and would reduce the amount of people in our jails by a pretty high rate.

Unfortunately, I'm under the impression that there's no reliable test to check the levels of THC in someone's blood and I think operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of said substance is a Really Bad Idea<tm> (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I have no personal experience in the matter).

The War on Drugs costs this country billions of dollars in taxpayer money. If we're going to cut programs, that should be one of the first to go.

---

From experience:

Last time I drove drunk I rolled over 3 street signs, went off the road too many times to count, and count myself lucky that I didn't die.

Last time I drove high I drove 5-15 miles below the speed limit, and generally avoided all traffic.

Driving under the influence of anything is dumb, but I trust a stoned driver, and will get in the passenger seat, way before I will a drunk driver.

back in the day our designated driver was high. Not drunk though. We were lucky, don't drive under the influence please. If you do and my kids get hurt as a result things won't end well for you.

Vengeful Scars and Atomic, would you ever agree to never drive while intoxicated or under the influence and be able to hold that decision? I would think in some perfect world that if people were responsible with their drug use that there would have never been a war on drugs. It has been over two years since I've operated a vehicle while intoxicated and maybe over five years since operating on another substance. All the videos I've been forced to watch from work, the articles I've read, and from personal experiences helped me conclude that I really need to not do that and a decision like that is incredibly stupid. Should anything ever happen I'd rather not have the deck stacked against me.

Well I don't drink our do drugs so ya. Unless it's prescription and life or death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Pino Rage

Vengeful Scars and Atomic, would you ever agree to never drive while intoxicated or under the influence and be able to hold that decision? I would think in some perfect world that if people were responsible with their drug use that there would have never been a war on drugs. It has been over two years since I've operated a vehicle while intoxicated and maybe over five years since operating on another substance. All the videos I've been forced to watch from work, the articles I've read, and from personal experiences helped me conclude that I really need to not do that and a decision like that is incredibly stupid. Should anything ever happen I'd rather not have the deck stacked against me.

---

I try not to drive period anymore(no license) and I really try my best o not drive while under then influence. I would agree to not driving intoxicated. but sometimes it's impossible, I know that sounds stupid, but sometimes I must go somewhere and there isn't a 100% sober person around.

I try my best not to drive drunk anymore, driving under the influence of anything else is much easier.

There are these things called "Taxis" and "Busses"

you shouldn't "try your best" not to drive anywhere while intoxicated. You should NOT DRIVE EVER while intoxicated.

If you know you have to drive, you don't drink. It's called being responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaiTengu

There are these things called "Taxis" and "Busses"

you shouldn't "try your best" not to drive anywhere while intoxicated. You should NOT DRIVE EVER while intoxicated.

If you know you have to drive, you don't drink. It's called being responsible.

---

I wasn't talking about drinking, and I understand you.

But Tennessee has terrible public transit(if I'm in Nashville it's not a problem), I guess you've never blown all your money on booze huh?

No, because I'm not irresponsible like that. I always have a designated driver lined up should I desire to drink. If I think my DD might flake out on me, I don't drink.

The last large gathering I went to where everyone got shitfaced, I was the designated driver. I have no problems doing this, as I can have just as much fun as everyone else, drinking or not drinking.

I feel like you're mad at me Tengu, that makes my feelers hurt.(was joking and not trying to start nuffin)

But to kinda steer this back into War on drugs etc;

If anyone is caught driving under then influence of anything, even if all drugs are legal, you should be charged with a DUI. Just as it is now, if you are driving stoned as hell, you could be charged with a DUI, same charge as alcohol. But DUI's for drugs usually falls under the Benzos like Xanax.

Being sober around a bunch of shitfaced people is not my idea of fun. Well I should put it another way. It used to be fun until I was sober all the time then it became not fun. It's more like babysitting a bunch of people who can barely walk and don't have any manners/morals/ethics/mouth filter.

But the DD gets his/her cover paid by group so that's a win.

The War on Drugs sounds wonderful in theory (in much the same way that being tough on crime sounds wonderful in theory), but it completely ignores the dynamics of why the drug trade exists and what it looks like. And let's get one thing straight right off the bat: the drug trade exists because people like doing drugs. This life is hard for some people. Drugs make it easier to get by. This life is boring sometimes, and drugs make it interesting. People like drugs. Period.

Not everybody, but enough people that you have a small scale civil war in Mexico driven by the wealth and power of drug cartels. And that's who you want to get rid of. But the question we need to ask is: how? I think you do it by legalizing and regulating every step, from production to transportation to distribution. Some people just really, really like heroin. Their money will be spent on heroin whether we like it or not. That money can either be used to pay the salary of a pharmacy worker and an honest field laborer, as well as taxed, or it can line the pockets, and fill the rooms of a cartel lord. In my honest opinion, the choice is obvious.

Let me be clear: I do not in any way condone the use of hard drugs. I've done cocaine, and it was a big mistake. I think we need to do a better job of teaching people what drugs actually do, so they make better choices about drugs. But for people who do make the choice to partake in hard drugs, we need to accept that it is their personal decision to make, and we need to make absolutely sure that the money they spend on drugs are not going into the wrong hands.

And that's the hard stuff. Marijuana should simply be treated and regulated in the same way that alcohol and cigarettes are, since of those three things marijuana is by far the most harmless.

Seeing some meth head 10 years later should be enough education. Seeing some crack head lose everything they ever had and going to jail for grand larceny should be education enough. But they can't see that, they give in to the pressure and take the first hit.

I honestly think it stems from the official government stance on marijuana, especially when it comes to "drug education." It's hard to find out that everything you've been told about pot was a lie without assuming that everything you've been told about every drug is a lie. But in my experience, the only lies were about pot and mushrooms. Everything else was pretty much spot on. Cocaine really is as addictive as they say it is. And to a much greater extent so are heroin and meth. But when you make people assume that everything they've been told was a lie, at least some will want to find out for themselves.

But I'm talking about looking at your friends. Like my meth head friend who has nothing but bills and empty spots where his teeth were. We hung out and smoked a lot of pot but now look at him. Just where he was 18 years ago. No where.

Not everybody can look at specific examples of somebody they know, that's where general education comes in. But I see what you're saying. My response would be that not everybody makes good decisions even given enough information, and that doesn't make somebody like your friend a criminal just because he's a drug addict.

for real, addicts don't need incarceration, they need rehabilitation.

Like when I overdosed on heroin, I was given a year to serve in jail, rather than rehab. Jail didn't make me not want to do the drug, though I don't do it anymore. Jail is not a deterrent for 'crime' to people who aren't afraid of jail. And to be quite honest, jail really isn't all that bad, depending on the conditions in your local county jail.

This is an inane debate. The problem with the war on drugs (or really attempts to control any black market) is that the penalties weigh harder on the supply than they do on the demand. That drives up the price of drugs, but doesn't affect the fact that the market exists.

We can easily fix the issue of drug use: kill anyone who uses them. If you smoke pot, you die. Coke? Dead. Heroin? Lights out. Eliminate demand and you eliminate the market (see also: HD-DVD sales). As it is now, the penalties associated with drugs are much greater for dealers and traffickers than they are for users. If 6 people go to jail to move a shipment of cocaine, or one of six shipments is intercepted by DEA agents, dealers will just pass along the cost to their buyers. If you eliminate demand for the product, dealing drugs will be far less lucrative and dealers will stop selling in the market. This will also fix a lot of the crime associated with drug trade.

Of course, the death penalty for drug use isn't a reasonable punishment, but keep sliding the penalty up along the scale and you'll see results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmoscheer

This is an inane debate. The problem with the war on drugs (or really attempts to control any black market) is that the penalties weigh harder on the supply than they do on the demand. That drives up the price of drugs, but doesn't affect the fact that the market exists.

We can easily fix the issue of drug use: kill anyone who uses them. If you smoke pot, you die. Coke? Dead. Heroin? Lights out. Eliminate demand and you eliminate the market (see also: HD-DVD sales). As it is now, the penalties associated with drugs are much greater for dealers and traffickers than they are for users. If 6 people go to jail to move a shipment of cocaine, or one of six shipments is intercepted by DEA agents, dealers will just pass along the cost to their buyers. If you eliminate demand for the product, dealing drugs will be far less lucrative and dealers will stop selling in the market. This will also fix a lot of the crime associated with drug trade.

Of course, the death penalty for drug use isn't a reasonable punishment, but keep sliding the penalty up along the scale and you'll see results.

---

The problem with that is this question: why is drug use so inherently bad that users should be punished? That makes no sense to me. The extent to which drugs are bad is that they hurt the user. Why punish them for it at all?

That's such an inane question... That's like saying "The flu only affects those that aren't immune to it, why bother giving flu shots?"

At the very least it's a public health issue. In its most academic form, drug trade has a broad number of negative externalities (organized crime, sex trade, gang violence, arms dealing, government resource drain, corruption, etc.) Your claim that drug users harm only themselves is convenient in a vacuum, but it's abhorrently ignorant in reality. By participating in a market for illicit substances, buyers are just as responsible for the negative (and positive, if there were any) externalities as sellers. The fact that punishing buyers is also more effective in shutting down the market (the supposed goal) certainly doesn't help their case for innocence.

Again, people getting picked up for grand larceny and other things are hurting more than just the user. There are victims of crime that is brought on by the use of illegal drugs. Price driven up by WoD which they pass on to the users and the users pass that cost on to an innocent bystander by stealing from them.

Well then persecute the crimes committed by drug users...which we already do. Larceny and armed robbery are already crimes. The motive is not really.the issue with those crimes. They are already adequately enforced.

But the kid that stole checks from me wouldn't have done that if it were not for one little thing called crack. So this drug had him do something he probably wouldn't have done if he would have never smoked crack. He was a friend and we hung out. I never expected it from him. I uttered forgery and he got picked up for larceny the night before he went to court. He got out then went right back in. Now he's in again for robing peoples houses while they are at work. Tragic. Now you also have people prostituting themselves for fix or crack or any other number of things. Some may and some may not have done prostitution anyway but most will say "I'm doing this so I can get that." Even though it's illegal and enforced it's not stopping them from doing it again.

Deleted post.

Drug users should be held responsible or creating a market in which sellers are incented to rape/murder/steal/etc. Buyers should internalize that negative externality as much as sellers. It has nothing to do with stupid crimes tweakers commit... That's missing the forest for the trees.

My whole point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with drugs. If we have problems with the crimes that drug dealers commit, then clean up the supply chain. If you have a problem with people who rob others to get their fix, then prosecute them for it. The system is already extremely punitive to both users and dealers, and the war on drugs has been a complete and utter failure. People still use drugs no matter what the punishment and no matter what the price. Maybe we should think about making it safer and easier to get drugs for them rather than more difficult and dangerous. Maybe we should eliminate the role of cartels by providing a legal supply chain that is subject to the same laws and regulations that any other legal industry has to adhere to. Then dealers would not even exist and we wouldn't have to worry about the violence that accompanies any black market industry.

Because no matter what you do, there will be a market for drugs. We've tried for decades to eliminate it, spent billions, and it persists. It's not going anywhere.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the system is "extremely punitive" to buyers. No drugs have inelastic demand curves; the fact that the demand still exists indicates that the price simply isn't high enough.

But yeah, busy yourself mixing morality into simple, straightforward economics.

So what, you took two semesters of college economics and now you think you can answer all of life's questions with supply and demand? Sounds legit.

Seriously though, isn't the point here to minimize the societal impact of the drug trade?

What, you are an insipid pedant who's incapable of rational discourse because you spend your time doing drugs and rationalizing your behavior (poorly) instead of educating yourself?

I majored in economics, and have been sober for a year.

Next question.

If you do drugs and it ain't cocaine, atmosfear don't like ya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrogerg123

My whole point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with drugs. If we have problems with the crimes that drug dealers commit, then clean up the supply chain. If you have a problem with people who rob others to get their fix, then prosecute them for it. The system is already extremely punitive to both users and dealers, and the war on drugs has been a complete and utter failure. People still use drugs no matter what the punishment and no matter what the price. Maybe we should think about making it safer and easier to get drugs for them rather than more difficult and dangerous. Maybe we should eliminate the role of cartels by providing a legal supply chain that is subject to the same laws and regulations that any other legal industry has to adhere to. Then dealers would not even exist and we wouldn't have to worry about the violence that accompanies any black market industry.

Because no matter what you do, there will be a market for drugs. We've tried for decades to eliminate it, spent billions, and it persists. It's not going anywhere.

---

The idea behind legalization is that once drugs become legalized and regulated that it would eliminate the black market. I think that is true, but a real perspective on the situation is that may not come for a long time. Meanwhile, supporters are advocating for better legislation they are still committing crimes and supporting the black market which on stretch supports the slaughter of tens of thousands of people.

Also, I do think drugs are bad because they contribute to long lasting ill effects to poor health and accumulate risks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Pino Rage

The idea behind legalization is that once drugs become legalized and regulated that it would eliminate the black market. I think that is true, but a real perspective on the situation is that may not come for a long time. Meanwhile, supporters are advocating for better legislation they are still committing crimes and supporting the black market which on stretch supports the slaughter of tens of thousands of people.

Also, I do think drugs are bad because they contribute to long lasting ill effects to poor health and accumulate risks.

---

That may be true. I probably should have said that drugs intrinsically are not all that bad, and societies treatment of them in a lot of ways makes them worse than they really are. I will readily admit that hard drugs are pretty unequivocally a societal bad. But very rarely do you hear a discussion of whether the negative side effects of criminalizing the drug trade are worse than the negative side effects of the drugs themselves. And at least to me, it seems like the side effects of criminalizing the drug trade are worse.

It doesn't much matter when it comes about, the point is we need to try to get to that point. Whether we attempt to get there or not, the black market for drugs persists, and people commit crimes, murder and get murdered over the drug trade. This will happen whether we attempt to legalize and clean up the supply chain or not. The more harshly and violently we fight the cartels, the more violent and efficient we force them to be. Organized crime should always be criminalized, investigated, and punished. But unless we accept that the reason that organized crime exists in the first place is that there is a market for substances (and in a broader sense beyond the drug trade, products and services in general) without a legal way of obtaining them, we will continue to look at the problem incorrectly. In an ideal world, hard drugs would be illegal and nobody would use them. That's not how the world works, and we do not live in an ideal world. Time to deal with it.

"CLEANING UP THE SUPPLY CHAIN" DOESN'T WORK YOU FUCKING MORON. Driving up the cost isn't going to move the needle... Cigarettes still sell just fine. Smoking was solved by reducing demand. This is a demonstrable fact.

I defy you to find me a single comparable criminal market that reduced in size after increasing punishment for suppliers.

O boohoo, troll boy called me a moron.

Shut the fuck up.

Seriously though, if you wanted to eliminate the drug trade entirely, you would make the penalty death for any drug charge of any size. Eventually, nobody would be left who was even interested in trying them.

But that is fucking insane. The drug trade is bad, but it's not so bad that we're better off with every drug user and dealer dead. That's just fucking ridiculous. It leads me to assume that you're joking, because you would have to be such a fucking asshole to think that's a good idea.

I done here. If that's your takeaway, I believe there's a 2 year community college somewhere that wants its associates degree in economics back.

Also, a village is missing its idiot.

Seems Atmosfear wants the US to implement Singapore's drug laws.

Seriously though, I think Atmos' views are quite a bit extreme.

Economics? Legalize Marijuana, and small opiates(not heroin, not Oxycodone, nothing hard, pretty much just codeine and maybe Hydrocodone, at low doses) and tax the ever living dog shit out of them. There will still be a small black market for those items(see alcohol and Moonshiners), but it will be mostly killed, and the Gov't could use the money generated from taxes to get us out of this hole we're in.

Those economics work better than either 2 previously proposed plans, so I want my associates/bachelors in economics from one of you two.

VS the purpose of the war on drugs is to end the drug trade, not to maximize the government's profit off of it. Anyone can propose a solution to a different problem and feel smugly self-satisfied that no one has yet mentioned it.

And I wasn't proposing to implement demand-reducing punishments starting with the death penalty, but it is generally considered to be the most extreme punishment we allow. It represents the maximum possible effectiveness of the economically sound solution. All you need to do for practical implementation is to scale back the punishment until you reach levels of drug use that are acceptable, after normalizing the externalities (the ill effects of a large prison population, the risks and rewards of alternative illicit or legal activities drug dealers may turn to, etc).

I assumed the war on drugs was just to stick the undesirables in jails, away from the pretty upper or middle class people who are seen to make a valid contribution to society

Fair enough, but that objective isn't satisfied by VS' idea either.

well, no, because they approach different objectives completely.

If you buy the stated goals of the war on drugs, then eliminating drug use = safer/better society and your suggestion of harsh penalties to eliminate demand would fix it.

VS' goal is to say the eliminating drug use has nothing to do with a safer/better society, so normalize the illegal things with our system and let everyone get what they want (drugs, taxes), except for the rabid anti-drug folk.

What I said was that drugs have nothing to do with the war on drugs, just the undesirables associated with them. It's approached the same way as Atmosfear's logical extreme, but with a different motivation and objective.

The drug trade will not stop until drug demand stops. The War on Drugs must be fought economically, by which I mean to end the demand to end the supply. I believe the only way to do this is to generate an alternative. I dont mean offer something to replace drugs, like cheaper alcohol. It needs to be something beneficial to society. The joys of other things must be encouraged.

Yes its utopian, but I believe that its the only way to do it.

I don't believe you could ever have anything to take the place of drugs. Just as some users like downers, and others like uppers, some people like narcotics rather than alcohol, and some people like altered (intoxicated) minds/feelings over sobriety.

I don't believe anything being changed would ever change the fact that some people like drugs. America is the number one drug using country in the world, and we're supposed to have the ultimate freedoms and happiness, even the idea of freedom and happiness is not an effective deterrent from drug use.

I think the only way you could ever stop drug use/ exchange it with something else, is to never have the availability of them. If a bottle of Rum is in the room with 100 people who have never seen or heard of alcohol, I would bet my life that by the end of 2 days the bottle would have been drank from, or gone. The reason I used drugs when I was younger was because they were accessible, I knew there was a punishment (both legal and parental) if I were to be caught, but I still partook in drug use.

(I don't know if that's a coherent thought, I'm high)

The problem with your what you're saying is that no one does drugs until they see them.

The problem with what you're saying is that 100 people is too many people for a bottle of rum should be more like one person - me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atomic

The problem with your what you're saying is that no one does drugs until they see them.

---

lol, I don't know if this is a troll post or not.

But yea, pretty much.

If you couldn't ever get weed in the first place would you wanna do it?

I made up my mind to do pot before I'd ever seen it. Little did I know that I came into contact with it much earlier than when I smoked it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atomic

I made up my mind to do pot before I'd ever seen it. Little did I know that I came into contact with it much earlier than when I smoked it.

---

What I was trying to get at, was that if you had never heard of pot (when I say not available, I mean does not exist) you wouldn't have done it.

That is the only way to stop all illegal drug use, and it's what the War on Drugs is trying to do, yet failing terribly. 80 years in a war(well, it was proposed 40 years ago), and they're still losing.

So we shouldn't tell people drugs are out there?

Abstinence only education. If you tell them about it, they'll do it.

No, I don't think that's the answer at all.

Not everyone can go to Harvard, but every dumb ass can fuck.

(I know this is AI, but I'm no where in the realm of being serious about that)

I didn't read the sarcasm in that. Sorry.

Maybe this is a downside of democracy? A lot of people like and want to continue drugs despite fears of ruining their lives, excluding addiction, but because a lot of people are misinformed or feel it is morally wrong it won't ever be or decades before progressive drug law reform will occur.

MPR is spot on, I think. People have been saying for years "Oh, in X years, marijuana will be legalized" I think we are very close, with the amount of states legalizing medicinal, and some decriminalizing, but I think we're at least another 10-20 to legalization of pot, let alone anything.

We'll see it in our lifetime, unless we hit a guardrail.