Categorize the comment on the basis of severe toxicity. If the comment is severely toxic output Yes, otherwise output No.

Ex Input:
That's the thing about legislation...if there are concerns about the constitutionality of it, it's best to let it die. The fact that Dunleavy was this enthusiastic to push this potentially unconstitutional bill speaks to his incompetence. I know he has worked in education, so it's a little weird how out of touch he is with some of the realities of...well, reality, I guess.

Ex Output:
No


Ex Input:
I'll repeat from my previous comment the quote from Jim Furnish, former supervisor on the Siuslaw National Forest and former deputy chief of the U.S. Forest Service;"The federal government ceased using forest herbicides after notoriously losing a landmark lawsuit over human health issues associated with miscarriages and birth defects....there is no longer any doubt that they (herbicides) are harmful to humans and the environment...the outcome is instructive to today's protracted struggle to ensure human health in the face of corporate greed."  In my opinion after 20 years of observing many of our county commissioners I believe they work for the wealthy logging industry at the expense of the people and wildlife. If Jay were truly concerned about low income folks he would make laws to protect them from toxins which could result in expensive medical costs and lost wages due to illnesses. Public servants should serve the public, not big campaign donors.

Ex Output:
No


Ex Input:
If an 18-year-old is dumb enough to purchase cigarettes for his or her own use - or, worse, the use of others under 18 - then, by definition, that person is not wise in the least.... and certainly not wise enough to do any of the other items on your list.

Ex Output:

Yes