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.

Ex Input:
With an alcohol by volume figure of 43 percent, the 2-ounce sachets are about as intoxicating as a typical 16-ounce beer, but consumers say that’s just one of their virtues. Kouame claimed they give him a jolt of energy other drinks can’t match — just what he needs to face a long day of hectic traffic, run-ins with police and testy fare negotiations. “It inspires me. It gives me a bit of courage to confront the challenges of life,” he said. From now on, however, Ivory Coast’s government wants Kouame to get his courage elsewhere. Last month, officials announced a ban on alcohol sachets, citing their health risks and the need to combat alcoholism, especially among youth. The measure is one of more than a half-dozen bans or partial bans on alcohol sachets in effect in sub-Saharan Africa, according to the World Health Organization. Other countries with bans include Zambia, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo and South Sudan, said Jean-Marie Vianny Maurice Yameogo, the WHO’s Ivory Coast representative. Tracking the sales of alcohol sachets, many containing spirits distilled from palm wine, is difficult because they are often produced outside regulated markets. The sachets are typically mass-produced in West Africa, with colorful packaging. The drink “Amour Profond,” or “Deep Love,” shows a man standing behind a bare-shouldered woman, whispering into her ear. The sachets are not necessarily more potent than other drinks available. Palm wine-based traditional drinks such as koutoukou, which are similarly cheap, can have alcohol by volume rates of more than 50 percent. But sachets are more likely to contain toxic chemicals such as methanol, or wood alcohol, Yameogo said. And the packaging often boasts of health and other benefits that Yameogo said have no basis in science. Some are said to provide cures for maladies such as hemorrhoids, while others are reputed to function as appetite-suppressants or aphrodisiacs. Moreover, the small sachets are easy to hide, making them especially tempting for schoolchildren, according to the Ivorian government and the WHO. “It’s something that’s accessible to everyone. You can buy a sachet, put it in your pocket and just walk around like that,” said Patrick Gbodou, president of School Anti-Drug, an Ivorian organization that campaigns against drinking and drug use by students. The official drinking age in Ivory Coast is 21, but it is rarely enforced, and teenage drinking is common. Vendors are worried they will take a huge hit if the ban on sachets is enforced, as many drinkers go for sachets and nothing else. “The government needs to have pity on us,” said Adjo Abega, the owner of a bar in Abidjan’s Port-Bouet district. Drinkers generally acknowledge the health risks posed by alcohol sachets, but some criticized the government for cracking down on their favorite vice while permitting other health hazards such as cigarettes. Desire N’Guessan, an unemployed 26-year-old, began drinking sachets when he was a teenager. He said he relies on them to ward off illness and for motivation to keep looking for work. “When you are not able to overcome your timidity, it can be difficult to operate in your neighborhood,” N’Guessan said. If the government makes good on the ban, he warned, Ivorian children could turn to drugs. He also predicted marches and protests. But Kouame, the taxi driver, was less worried. In the absence of alcohol sachets, he said he would switch up his morning routine by drinking glasses of palm wine instead, adding: “Man can adapt to anything.”

Ex Output:
Ivory Coast is latest to crack down on alcohol sachets.


Ex 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."

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


Ex Input:
Thanks to her oft-aired opinion that homosexuals were a “mistake of nature,” radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger became one of the targets of pro-gay sympathies looking for someone to shake a finger at in the late 1990s. Dr. Schlessinger attracted both adherents and detractors during her years of public life. Through her radio show, she dispenses advice to callers, usually from a conservative point of view. She was an Orthodox Jew at the time the letter quoted above was written (but she announced her renunciation of that faith on her show in July 2003) and often draws upon the Bible or religious teachings for guidance. She is blunt and forthright in her replies, viewing most situations as inherently black or white, right or wrong. Laura Schlessinger is neither a medical doctor nor accredited in a discipline one would traditionally look to for the dispensing of expertise in moral, societal, or spiritual matters (such as divinity, psychology, or sociology). She earned her doctorate in physiology from Columbia University and practiced as a licensed marriage, family, and child counselor for more than a decade (although her California Marriage Family and Child Counseling license has been inactive for many years now). In 1998 nude photos of Laura Schlessinger were published on the Internet. During the commotion over those pictures, their source was revealed  to be veteran Los Angeles radio broadcaster Bill Ballance, a man who was pivotal in getting Schlessinger her start in radio. Ballance claimed he photographed her in 1978, while the pair of them were having an affair during Schlessinger’s first marriage. Some critics considered Schlessinger’s use of the title “Doctor” to be misleading and viewed her stance on the sanctity of marriage and the wrongness of adultery as hypocrisy in light of her decades-earlier affair. Others maintained the title of “Doctor” should not be restricted only to those in the medical field and held that people could change over time, even to the point of full repudiation of previous behaviors and beliefs. In 2000 the state of Vermont permitted homosexual couples to contract “civil unions,” an official recognition that imparted to same-sex partners the legal benefits of marriage, such as the right to be regarded by hospitals as their partners’ next of kin, to make medical decisions on behalf of their partners, and to file joint tax returns. This “everything that is marriage but the name” decision pleased some and angered others, resulting in many heated opinions about same-sex unions in specific, and homosexuality in general, to be bruited in countless public forums. Those looking for someone to crow at over Vermont’s recognition of same-sex unions quickly thought of Dr. Laura. As a counter to the “homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so” argument Dr. Laura frequently offered, Kent Ashcraft penned and sent her a letter that became an Internet-circulated piece after its author e-mailed a copy to one friend whom he thought would find it amusing. She in turn forwarded the item to several of her friends, and the letter went viral within a couple of weeks:  Dear Dr. Laura, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them. a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan. While some online versions  identified James M. Kauffman as the author of the piece, that gentleman denied authorship of it. In August 2003 a journalist for the Halifax Daily News presented the “Dr. Laura letter” as her own writing. For representing the piece in her column as her own by signing it “Yours truly, Jane,” reporter Jane Kansas was fired from that publication. (Her version also changed “Dear Dr. Laura” to “Dear Holy Father” and added some local references.) This piece struck a note with many people, and by June and July of 2000 it had made its way into a number of newspapers, including the Knoxville News-Sentinel (7 June), Seattle Weekly (8 June), OC Weekly (9 June), The [Syracuse] Post-Standard (11 June), [Madison] Capital Times (13 July), and the Modesto Bee (22 July). Most often the letter was acknowledged as an interesting item gleaned from the Internet, but in a few cases the readers who sent it to newspapers presented it as their own words. The key to this essay was its premise, not the pedantic details of it of how it was defended. Simply put, the letter pointed out a logical flaw in the “homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so” argument: if homosexuality is wrong because it goes against God’s law as outlined in the Bible, why aren’t any number of activities now viewed as innocuous but proscribed as unacceptable in the Bible also offenses against God’s law? How can one part of Leviticus be deemed as etched in stone when other parts have been discarded as archaic? The essay completed with the sarcastic rejoinder “Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.” While this sign-off was presented as a rebuke meant for just one person, it was a general reminder that many belief systems pick and choose their way through biblical teachings in determining what is right and what is wrong, with those assessments changing over time even within sects that pride themselves on strict adherence to the Bible. In early October 2000, Dr. Schlessinger ran a full-page ad in Variety offering an apology for what she called “poorly chosen” words about homosexuality. She had previously referred to gays as “biological errors” and “deviants,” as exemplified by her remarks of 8 December 1998:   I’m sorry — hear it one more time, perfectly clearly: If you’re gay or a lesbian, it’s a biological error that inhibits you from relating normally to the opposite sex. The fact that you are intelligent, creative and valuable is all true. The error is in your inability to relate sexually intimately, in a loving way to a member of the opposite sex — it is a biological error. October 2000 was not Dr. Laura’s month. A few weeks after she issued her apology, a version of the “Letter to Dr. Laura” was incorporated into the 18 October episode of the political television drama The West Wing. In “The Midterms,” President Bartlet used his own detailed knowledge of the Bible to make a Schlessinger-esque character named Jenna Jacobs look ridiculous. Kent Ashcraft, the author of the Dr. Laura letter, received a modest sum from Lorimar Productions in payment for their use of parts of his letter in that episode):  Just as the Internet piece gave the West Wing writers fodder for a memorable scene, so did the exposure on a popular television show boost the online circulation of the “Letter to Dr. Laura.” Similarly, a 2004 brouhaha over gay marriage sparked a renewal of this e-missive, causing it to once again be flung from inbox to inbox.

Ex Output:

A letter highlighting fallacies in Biblical anti-homosexuality arguments was sent to radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger.