policy in adopting both lissa and the c s a holding that an employee whose employment activity consists of trafficking schedule one drugs does not have a private right of action under flip would be consistent with lissa and consistent with the c s a whereas holding that plaintiff's year has that private right of action would be labor practices that restrict the flow of those goods in commerce and so by adopting provisions like minimum wages and maximum hours congress could ensure to the greatest extent possible that lawful industries can freely trade goods throughout the united states congress declared in the c s a that it wanted to restrict entire the flow of deter individuals from participating in enterprises that traffic schedule one drugs congress passed the to promote general health and wellbeing congress found in the c contrary to congress express policy rationale in adopting both swiss and the  there's nothing explicit there's no explicit exception in the n f l the say there's nothing explicit in the controlled substance so it's a policy argument is a policy argument in part to the extent that the goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to congress express policy yes and so to understand what congress statutory interpretation pointis is proceeding under twenty nine u s c section two sixteen b which confers a private right of action on employees to recover the unpaid compensation in using the word their congress didn't know did some sort of property right in that compensation that is further effectuated by the next subsection twenty nine u has to establish a personal property right in this compensation to the extent he has personal property right it's because congress established it by enacting without flesh knowing who he could claim a property interest in a certain amount of compensation on less it was part of a contract which isn't the case here so is there any know but i think that's fairly implied that congress was trying to establish a level of wages that would be fair but the reason they wanted to establish wages that would be  ure really is because of more of a macro economic approach which is they wanted to avoid a situation where workers were constantly underbidding each other and jobs went to the most desperate workers who were willing to take the least amount of money and that really was in an effort to promote widespread job availability by creating at least a baseline of compensation a private think it's not an action brought by the department of labor but as a private point us he has a property right to this money and congress has said clearly in the c s a that there is no property rights in  your honor every participant in colorado's recreational marijuana industry makes an implicit bargain they understand that while they are required to comply with all federal law all while they are subject any point to federal criminal sanction they do not enjoy any benefits of federal law that is true of businesses and individuals of employers and employees of producers and retailers everyone knows that they're entering this legally ambiguous industry wholly prescribe under federal law and as a result they have no right to claim federal benefits federal law is currently being enforced i think that's unclear your honor i know that under the cole memorandum the department of justice said that there in force in priorities are to prevent diversion to prevent sales to children and to prevent the organized criminal elements from being colorado has developed a robust legal and regulatory framework to govern the recreational marijuana industry including by adopting a law that is exactly the parallel of the law that plaintiffs is proceeding that the activity would have to be lawful and so the construction of the colorado supreme court is that means lawful under state in federal law because it's not lawful under federal law it's not lawful for the purposes of colorado minimum wage act as interpreted by the minimum wage order which is the analogous state statute has no sort of analogous language i don't see how there could be a preemption argument  opportunity had been there for congress to step in and make an exemption for these individuals and it hasn't done so and also have not gone in and made their d n a while holding us or any sort of we galatea argument and as for instance they did percentage of their business is not guarding marijuana company that has a greater percentage it's a greater percentage that is guarding the marijuana industry is as far as its  like you stated earlier just see more he would does comply with federal law in other regards for instance just yesterday they filed the tenth you report they pay federal income taxes they pay social security taxes they actually have and there is not an exception for companies who are in violation of the controlled substances act from complying with the act there's no question that the expressed terms of the f l if they cover the employees helix is an employer under the a happened you treat illegitimate business is more leniently then legitimate business you would have a legal business obtaining a competitive advantage over law abiding legitimate businesses by both letting them  over other security services for marijuana go to that well your honor they also provide security services not just to the marijuana industry so you have security services for instance providing security guards to a mall who would be looking for similar individuals to work isn't poison you're saying because you're violating the c f a we don't have to pay you overtime that gives them an advantage over a law abiding company in  no expressed language in either side of the statute that repeal the other from each other the s l o stay in the f o stay alone out of this in this context governs the payment of overtime wages which is what the claim mr kenny has brought either statute one of the punishments set forth for the in the controlled substances act is not withholding wages or overtime wages from these individuals i would posit to the court that he the helix cannot meet the heavy burden of implied repeal they it would have to be it relates to the actual underlying claim itself which here is the violation of over time and here there would be no the employees here had nothing to do with the decision on whether or not they received overtime specifically whether or not there is a conflict between the two statutes i would i would say that the answer is there absolutely is not the controlled substances act reckoned recognition of federal regulatory authority and jurisdiction for the federal government to pro government from prosecuting drug crimes if you pay overtime to these individuals they have absolute prosecutorial discretion as to whether or not they would like to bring drug crimes and there's been no indication here and there have been no charges brought compliance functions for businesses but the vast major portion of felix's business is supplying security services exclusively to the marijuana industry they provide individuals like plaintiffs who with use of a firearm card the production of the schedule one substance and then transported with the intent to distribute it that is far and away the major portion of my client's business how do you treat employees in the software provides a certain amount of stock in lieu of over time employees like mr cheney sign up for that program and redo except doc in lieu of overtime that's why we're  federal protection to markets in products that congress has declared to be illegal and you have to look at the c s a to determine if in a given congress determined that this would cover illegal gun running or that it would encourage other congress of men that to make this clear congress might need to amend it in the future now that we have this burgeoning new industry that s which is why this question is rising right now and why it's arising in colorado which is the first state to have a recreational marijuana industry they haven't yet enterprise in gauging commerce or the production of goods recovers and your client you appear to fit within that description even if there was a considered not answer the question in two ways affirming first if that this were case by the department of labor that might be dispositive but because this is a private right of action also look at section two sixteen b and section which requires the plane just to establish that this is their compensation which means they have a right to it under federal law and they don't because federal laws are clear that there is no property rights in the proceeds of federal