rest of my time for a bottle unless there are further question claim i'll start with the free exercise in equal protection claims which are evaluated under time under that task the government may impose regulations reasonably related to a legitimate logical entrusts even if those regulations certain inmates constitutional rights unless the plaintiff can show that the regulations are an exaggerated response to the state's interests the complaint and attachments here fail to establish a plausible claim really sort of washed out in the given the process that happened years you know because i think you point to the fact that well yeah but there's just a stuffy attached to his complaint and so that shows us there could be a less restrictive alternative but i'm not sure how that shows how there's a less restrictive alternative that would be consistent with the way the whole course of our sources tell me how there is and how well that's already been sort of whose combination of property is necessarily undermine the president's compelling interests those cases involved situations where the inmate was requesting an exception for as an exception to a grooming policy or a dietary substance inconsistent with safety and security and concluded that they that using cannabis would pose a health and safety issue and we think that this court's decision and lastly is instructive there this court has no problem documents here are sufficient to decide this as a dismissal stage the administrative officer explain the combination of properties like cannabis has which means but it's been used for sacramental purposes cannot be aligned with the government's interest  health that's correct but it doesn't have the same combination of properties that cannabis has so for example it doesn't have the same cycle active properties cannabis can increase paranoia that kind of the quest for the promise is the counsel i think what you're saying i think that might actually be somewhat compelling that that kind of goes to what i was saying earlier to your posing to also which is you know you've been drinking assemble all sacramento wine or taken some puffs on a cigarette don't do those things right so maybe maybe maybe pot is different but if i looking at the record you're basically saying there is no less restrictive means and you're giving some s like could be compelling arguments especially for any cannabis any t h c in but i don't see that the problem is i just don't see that a right i think your of your embellishing or adding to sort of the summary statements that were that were said to him in his response to the kite so i just i'm not saying that the government couldn't win but i just wonder if like i don't think the least restrictive alternative analysis has really been done  at the level even that you're saying here in this oral argument well we do believe this record is sufficient but if the court sees the records differently then we would welcome the opportunity to litigate these issues on remand after of course mr to those claims that would be the plaintiff's furred and to establish that the government's prohibition here is not reasonably related to illegitimate pina lodgepole interests and those factual allegations ha claimant here would have to file a new complaint and pay the fee so these for the problems you're stating are you saying that they mean that we should uphold those with prejudice part at least with regard to the two constitutional claims because they could just why don't we do that if they could just plead around you so they have yet to apply this but he could just be around but you're saying we don't think that there are any facts that he could add as to the constitutional claims that would say to claim under the and whether or not to use really implicates those interests to the extent that you're arguing you're arguing for a kind of or per se rule that