i understood that your argument was a course of employment did not really necessarily when the what i ordinarily understood was settled law which is sucky there at the workplace or something related to the workplace you're saying that  has to be some major will trace either alcohol are the illicit drug in his system when tested there was not at the time he was tested right isn't that what the definition of under the influence is by your policy at that point in time yes if he believed he had said anything  monday there's not going to be a call in his blood but he's ignorant of that he goes to work in there they draw blood just on a random test and he says look i may i may come up positive for th result which he did not have in that player posed the question if you have somebody that's going to blood alcohol if they show up on monday and say oh my gosh i just took a random attack i think i may come out positive does that mean that they're under the influence and you said no and by what you're doing is you're going here extrapolating from scientific literature what you know or what you believe to know which was never but isn't that what i just sat that the referee had determined that by the way he understands the drug testing and how long it stays in your system he's determining if he had been t some time earlier that he would have come back yes but he was a half that any time before that's the whole idea of random drug testing is it not it is  this is the employer how the employer interprets his policy is what determines whether it's work related the course of duty is to say this is how they are their policy is the way they interpret their own policy reason related to the employment and it's not the court's job to interpret the meaning of their policy that spirituality in their policy that they are rooted in in the course of the play to me only when you're on premise your place drug free by the fact that you're abusing illegal behavior you're associating with other people who are manufacturing and distributing distributing illegal substances well i think that and i'm not disagreeing with what you're saying as a public policy or the reputation of the housing authority but that seems to be going very far feel this policy as i read it and as my quite honestly my concern is i see absolutely no difference alcohol and marijuana as far as the way it's defined and treated and i i don't think anybody with a straight face could say that you joined the day you sign on to this do you agree to this that you're agreeing to never consume alcohol you're absolutely correct a for whatever reason and the housing authority found out that they used marijuana would they terminate them could they terminate them under this policy associate with people who are in business of manufacturing industry or any legal drugs but we've got pretty far afield down there you're actually talking about his character and you know i'll see it's when he's not at work period well ok but we're not i guess we're not there this is just trying to get a feel for the course of employment that alone is not sufficient basis to deny the zero tolerance policy  that has had any exposure to drugs and alcohol knows that there's a period that relates to various drugs but my point is how in the world us by calloused or support your position when the whole case centered around the fact that this driver was found with cocaine in his system and that was the holding of the case that it doesn't matter whether or not you can show that a it related to the accident or them paired the