To calculate sentences, the guidelines employ a grid that matches a defendant's adjusted offense level with his or her criminal history to determine a specific sentencing range. At issue is whether the guidelines preclude departure in the case of a drug abuser who has undergone substantial rehabilitation. This issue has produced a split in Federal courts of appeal, and the courts have not been able to agree on what the real question is. The unresolved issue is whether existing guideline provisions address the problem of drug rehabilitation adequately. The two provisions that courts have invoked to deal with drug rehabilitation are policy statement 5H1.4 governing drug dependence or abuse and guideline 3E1.1 governing acceptance of responsibility. The analysis of rehabilitation, retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence concludes that judges should feel free to depart from the guidelines in the case of a rehabilitated drug user. No guideline provision linguistically applies to the issue of drug rehabilitation, and the one provision that even mentions drug dependence is a nonbinding policy statement. Further, even if the language of policy statement 5H1.4 or guideline 3E1.1 are stretched to incorporate drug rehabilitation, it is clear they fail to give rehabilitation adequate consideration in the sentencing structure. 148 footnotes