on and it is seen that state agencies supposed to know when it's a metabolite or when he's under the influence how was i was at their job to know that that so your client have admitted to use of cocaine on january twenty sixth you stayed home from work the next day and then went to work on the twenty eighth driving a truck that i think everybody would admit that if you're under the influence of cocaine you pose a danger to yourself and members of people on the highway and they still will so why is the burden on i got to retroactively and say well we didn't do what this federal guidelines said that essentially and this gentleman had the benefit of those regulations because he was in the program he  and cocaine user addicted doctor crime i think he said he had one relapse so why why didn't that voluntary admission act as a substitute if you will for the regulations and there are federal requirements that the state agency has to follow about safety sensitive employees and what the doctor said wrathfully was that under the federal regulations  does seem to be an employee assistance program and we know he was not discharged at that time we don't know a lot more about the circumstances of two thousand and eleven but just going back to our own regulations for  punishment or what discipline rather the court would consider appropriate in the first instance or in life proposed medical circumstances the courts only rule of view role and review is to consider within this is arbitrary had now been using cocaine in two thousand and eleven two thousand and fourteen except for a couple of days before the task so he's contradicted by his own addiction counselor and i mention that because a lot of them are getting into i voluntarily entered this treatment program where the plaintiff had a satisfactory disciplinary record all those are factors but there are other factors in the record the factors that i have mentioned about the play did not have by credibly about his own history  that the decision to discharge this employee was on reasonable i was a very reasonable decision not to take chances with employees sick to public safety a reasonable decision to preserve the public trust to say that we want to have productive employees that are their function and our cylinders and i think that ultimately decided here and is why the commission's decision has to be upheld  mere but for several reasons it ignores that this was a test that was administered in accordance with better regulations and there's no question under the federal regulations that this was a positive drug test those those regulations are performed was a very standard task consistent with with medical practice and ultimately the idea that you didn't have a positive drug test here even though the test showed recent in use i think it's not i think it produces a very and if you under that view most drugs had a stroke opinions would end up being negative even if the person is taking a lot of cafe so the purpose of the policy would be completely finding there was a positive test and so we're firing him that's the only decision made as a recommendation for firing is the positive test right but there is some wiggle room if you will about reviewing the individual's past mystery his work records things of that nature i was those are factors that could be taken into account and were actually taken into account here but even one reason for that is i think the policy works best to promote safety and to discourage drug use if it is consistently applied and also because opportunities for drug testing are necessarily limited alcohol where as you say cooking goes through the system very quickly and spawn so the only way to test for it is these markers and so without the hall you know some