Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Input: Consider Input: "State lawmakers have a month before they get back to work in the 2015 legislative session and already the debate over medical marijuana has gotten into the, ahem, weeds. State Rep. Allen Peake, R-Macon serves as co-chair of a joint legislative committee that has studied whether and how to legalize the drug for certain conditions, including seizures in children. Peake has revived a bill aimed at allowing cannabis oil made from marijuana plants for treatment of certain seizure disorders and other health problems. He is finalizing that proposal, pre-filed as House Bill 1 after a similar measure fell short last session. But another committee member, state Sen. Curt Thompson, D-Tucker, is proposing a competing bill that would allow vaporized, edible or smokable marijuana. Thompson also has filed a resolution, calling for a statewide referendum on whether to authorize recreational use of the drug. Confusion about the oil form versus a smokeable drug has prompted Peake, who said he does not support expanded use, to speak out. ""We believe that the medical cannabis oil –  very low in THC, that doesn’t have a psychoactive component to it, cannot get you high – is a better approach for our citizens,"" Peake said in a press conference before a committee meeting last week. Opponents of the oil have raised safety concerns. So PolitiFact Georgia decided to take a closer look at  Peake’s contention that the oil extracted from marijuana won’t get users high. First, a reminder that the federal government still classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance, defined as ""the most dangerous"" drug ""with no currently accepted medical use."" Despite that designation, 23 states have legalized medical marijuana, allowing access to the drug for a variety of medical conditions. Another 11 states – including neighboring Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee  – have enacted laws allowing cannabis oil products for medical reasons in limited situations. The key difference in allowing the oil, supporters say, is that it is high in cannabidiol and low in tetrahydrocannabinol. Both are compounds found in the marijuana plant that act on cell receptors that control neurotransmitters in the brain and the immune system from various organs, such as the spleen. Cannabidiol, known as CBD, is an antioxidant and not psychoactive. Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC is the long-known mind-altering part of pot. Cannabis oil is made from strains of marijuana already bred to be high in CBD and low in THC. For medical use, the oil is made with less than 3 percent THC and is orally ingested. Children’s doses tend to be at 1 percent THC, or lower. Studies are scarce on the medical benefits of such a product, given the Schedule I classification. But research does show that THC is what brings both it and CBD into the brain, where CBD’s antioxidant properties are thought to protect the brain. That evidence helped the federal Department of Health and Human Services earn a patent on medical marijuana in 2003. Anecdotally, parents of children with epilepsy and other seizure diseases back up the findings, reporting marked improvement from the cannabis oil. A London drug company, GW Pharmaceuticals, has created a drug out of highly purified CBD that has shown in preclinical studies that it potentially reduce seizures. The firm is waiting on final approval from Georgia Regents University and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration to begin clinical trials in Georgia with children who have severe seizure disorders. None of the existing studies or anecdotes from parents acknowledge or report any ""high"" from cannabis oil. Even the National Institute on Drug Abuse, while acknowledging the federal government does not see marijuana as medicine, reports that CBD as a ""non-psychoactive cannabinoid"" that may prove useful in treating epilepsy as well as some inflamation disorders and mental illnesses. In other words, while the medical use of cannabis oil can be debated given the limited number of medical and clinic studies, there is some common ground on the product. Marijuana remains officially a more dangerous drug than cocaine, according to the federal government. But the main component of the plant used to make cannabis oil doesn’t have the mind-altering, munchies-inducing effect associated with street use of the plant."

Output: Unlike marijuana, medical cannabis oil cannot get you high.


Input: Consider Input: Licenses for hemp cultivation topped a half-million acres (200,000 hectares) last year, more than 450% above 2018 levels, so there’s intense interest in the rules the U.S. government is creating. Critical comments on the draft have poured in from hemp farmers, processors, retailers and state governments. Growers are concerned the government wants to use a heavy hand that could result in many crops failing required tests and being destroyed. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agency writing the rules, estimates 20% of hemp lots would fail under the proposed regulations. “Their business is to support farmers — and not punish farmers — and the rules as they’re written right now punish farmers,” said Dove Oldham, who last year grew an acre (0.40 hectares) of hemp on her family farm in Grants Pass. “There’s just a lot of confusion, and people are just looking for leadership.” The USDA did not respond to the criticism but has taken the unusual step of extending the public comment period by a month, until Jan. 29. The agency told The Associated Press it will analyze information from this year’s growing season before releasing its final rules, which would take effect in 2021. Agricultural officials in states that run pilot hemp cultivation programs under an earlier federal provision are weighing in with formal letters to the USDA. “There are 46 states where hemp is legal, and I’m going to say that every single state has raised concerns to us about something within the rule. They might be coming from different perspectives, but every state has raised concerns,” said Aline DeLucia, director of public policy for the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. Most of the anxiety involves how the federal government plans to test for THC, the high-inducing compound found in marijuana and hemp, both cannabis plants. The federal government and most states consider plants with tiny amounts — 0.3% or less — to be hemp. Anything above that is marijuana and illegal under federal law. Yet another cannabis compound has fueled the explosion in hemp cultivation. Cannabidiol, or CBD, is marketed as a health and wellness aid and infused in everything from food and drinks to lotions, toothpaste and pet treats. Many have credited CBD with helping ease pain, increase sleep and reduce anxiety. But scientists caution not enough is known about its health effects, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last year targeted nearly two dozen companies for making CBD health claims. Still, the CBD market is increasing at a triple-digit rate and could have $20 billion in sales by 2024, according to a recent study by BDS Analytics, a marketing analysis firm that tracks cannabis industry trends. About 80% of the 18,000 farmers licensed for hemp cultivation are in the CBD market, said Eric Steenstra, president of the advocacy group Vote Hemp. The remaining 20% grow hemp for its fiber, used in everything from fabric to construction materials, or its grain, which is added to health foods. But hemp is a notoriously fickle crop. Conditions such as sunlight, moisture and soil composition determine its ratio of THC to CBD. Choosing the right harvesting window is critical to ensuring it stays within acceptable THC levels. Under the draft USDA rules, farmers have no wiggle room. They must harvest within 15 days of testing their crop for THC, and the samples must be sent to a lab certified by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Samples must be from the top of the plant, where THC levels are highest, and the final measurement must include not just THC, but also THCA, a nonpsychoactive component. Crops that test above 0.3% for the two combined must be destroyed. Growers with crops above 0.5% would be considered in “negligent violation,” and those with repeated violations could be suspended from farming hemp. In addition, a pilot program for federal crop insurance that would be available to hemp growers in some states specifies that crops lost because of high THC levels won’t be covered. Those provisions are causing alarm among growers and states with pilot hemp programs allowed under the 2014 Farm Bill. Some states allow THC levels above 0.3%, and not all include THCA in that calculation. Many permit more harvesting time for growers after THC testing. Farmers are lobbying for a 1% THC limit and a 30-day harvest window to give them more flexibility while remaining well under THC levels that can get people high. The draft regulations don’t “seem to be informed by the reality of the crop,” said Jesse Richardson, who with his brother sells CBD-infused teas and capsules under the brand The Brothers Apothecary. “If no one can produce (federally) compliant hemp flower, then there will be no CBD oil on the market.” Growers are also worried about the proposed rule requiring that all THC testing be done in a DEA-certified lab because there are so few of them. Some states have only one, which would serve hundreds of growers in a short harvest window. Samantha Ford, a third-generation farmer in North Carolina, waited two weeks to get back THC results from a lab last fall and then spent 45 days harvesting her 1 acre (0.40 hectares) of hemp by hand. “The 15-day window — that’s not feasible, and that was on a small scale,” she said. “I can’t imagine farmers who have acres and acres and acres of it.” Concerns also have emerged about the workload the draft rules would place on states. Many do random sampling for THC levels, but the USDA would require five samples from every hemp lot — a burden for state agricultural departments, said DeLucia, of the national ag agencies group. If federal rules are too onerous and expensive, some states might drop their hemp programs. In those cases, farmers would have to apply for licenses with the USDA, and at this stage it’s unclear how U.S. officials would manage or pay for a nationwide licensing program, DeLucia said. Under the 2018 Farm Bill, the USDA must approve state plans for hemp programs. Louisiana, Ohio and New Jersey last month were the first to get the green light — but those plans might need to be reworked after final rules are written. “What we don’t want to see is states having to write their rules and then have to change the rules again and rewrite them” after 2021, said Steenstra, of Vote Hemp.

Output: High anxiety: Proposed US hemp rules worry industry .


Input: Consider Input: This story does not mention cost. Sure, vitamin pills cost only pennies a day, but treating everyone would cost billions of dollars a year. Assuming just a nickel a day for 400 IU of vitamin D (the dose used in this study), the cost of treating everyone in the U.S. would exceed $5 billion a year. That bill has to be compared to the expected benefits of supplements given to healthy people, which in this trial were not statistically significant, so those billions might just be flushed down the drain. As noted above, the body of the story makes clear that the results of this trial did not show a clear benefit from taking 400 IU daily. However, the headline and lead sentence both state that vitamin D might fight colds, something this trial failed to clearly demonstrate. We’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt for what’s in the middle, not at the top. The story cautions that vitamin D can cause problems including nausea, vomiting, constipation, poor appetite, weight loss and even higher blood pressure or heart rhythm abnormalities. This rating is a close call. The story notes the limitations of the study of vitamin D and winter colds, including the fact that there was no statistically significant difference in the main outcome measure between the treatment and placebo groups, that the study was small, and that the extent of any benefit was not clear. The story also does a nice job of providing readers with some background, including results of other recent trials, as well as recommendations and opinions of health agencies and experts. However, the cautionary notes in the body of the story are drowned out by the headline and the lead sentence that tout potential cold-fighting properties of vitamin D. Also, while the story says that 164 men took part in the trial, it fails to tell readers that 60 of them dropped out before the study was done and that the high number of drop-outs made it impossible for the researchers to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in absenteeism between the treatment and placebo groups. We’ve made our point about the headline and lead, so we won’t ding the story for that again in this criterion. But the grade could have gone either way for reasons noted. This story does not exaggerate the effects of common winter colds. Although this story refers to the findings of other studies and the recommendations of health agencies and experts, there is no identified independent source to comment on the trial. In their journal article, the researchers reported no potential conflicts of interest. It would have been helpful to tell readers that the trial was funded by the Medical Research Fund of Finnish Defence Forces, in order to distinguish this trial from studies funded by supplement manufacturers or others with a vested interest in the results. The story points out that experts generally recommend supplements only when people aren’t getting enough vitamin D from their diet or sunlight. And as noted above, the story points out that supplements expose people to some risks of vitamin D toxicity. The availability of vitamin D supplementation is really not in question. There was no claim that there is anything new about tests of vitamin D for prevention of respiratory illness. This story missed the opportunity to explain what was different about this trial. In their article in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, the researchers pointed out that by studying military conscripts much of the variability that complicates population studies was filtered out. All the participants were from a narrow age group, had passed the same entry physical examination, lived in the same military housing, ate the same food, followed the same daily routines and so on. Also, the classification of their daily status (healthy or ill) was more uniform than would be expected in a study of people in varied civilian occupations. The strengths of the study would be expected to filter out much of the background noise that fogs typical population studies. It is notable that despite those features, this trial failed to reach statistically significant results (partly because of the high drop out rate, which the story should have mentioned.) One word usage nit: the story refers to military “recruits,” but the study participants were not recruited to join the military, they were performing mandatory service. The story quotes an e-mail exchange with the lead researcher, so it’s clear it didn’t rely solely on a news release.


Output: Some evidence vitamin D might fight colds