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 Q]: "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 A]: Unlike marijuana, medical cannabis oil cannot get you high.

[EX Q]: "In his address to a joint session of Congress, President Barack Obama brought up the most explosive charge to emerge in the health care debate: the specter of ""death panels."" ""Some of people’s concerns (about the health care legislation) have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost,"" Obama told lawmakers and a national television audience on Sept. 9, 2009. ""The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple."" The president was referring to a notion most prominently raised by former Alaska Republican Gov. Sarah Palin in a note posted on her Facebook page on Aug. 7, 2009. ""And who will suffer the most when they ration care?"" Palin wrote. ""The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."" We have read all 1,000-plus pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's ""level of productivity in society"" to determine whether someone is ""worthy"" of health care. When we first  assessed  Palin's claim on Aug. 7, 2009, we gave it our lowest rating — . Palin may have jumped to a conclusion about the Obama administration's efforts to promote comparative effectiveness research. Such research has nothing to do with evaluating patients for ""worthiness."" Rather, comparative effectiveness research finds out which treatments work better than others. The health reform bill being considered in the House of Representatives says that a Comparative Effectiveness Research Center shall ""conduct, support, and synthesize research"" that looks at ""outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically."" The idea here, which Obama and his budget director Peter Orszag have discussed many times, is to make it easier for doctors, health care workers, insurance companies and patients to find out which treatments are the most effective, as determined by clinical studies and other research. The House bill states in the section creating the Comparative Effectiveness Research Center and an oversight commission that ""nothing in this section shall be consd to permit the Commission or the Center to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer."" In other words, comparative effectiveness research will tell you whether treatment A is better than treatment B. But the bill as written won't mandate which treatment doctors and patients have to select. Nothing has emerged to suggest to us that the death panels claim is any more  today than it was when Palin first floated it. We still rate it as  today. In our book, that counts as a ""lie, plain and simple."" So we find Obama's claim ."
[EX A]: The claim ... that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to  kill off senior citizens ... is a lie, plain and simple.

[EX Q]: Aegerion shares fell more than 12 percent in extended trading. Juxtapid was approved by U.S. health regulators in December 2012 to treat patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH), a rare genetic disease that impairs the function of the receptor responsible for removing LDL-C or “bad” cholesterol from the body. The company said it intended to cooperate fully with the government investigation. Chief Executive Mark Beer had received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November over statements that the regulator said misleadingly suggested Juxtapid was safe and effective in decreasing cardiovascular events and could be used as a standalone therapy. The FDA asked that the company respond with a plan to show it would not use promotional material containing the misleading statements and a strategy to adopt corrective measures in the marketing of the drug. (link.reuters.com/zup85v)  Juxtapid is the sole approved Aegerion product. Aegerion on Thursday also reported preliminary net product sales of between $48 and $49 million, in line with its most recent guidance of between $45 and $50 million. The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based company now expects net product sales of $190 million to $210 million in 2014. Analysts on average were expecting the company to post revenues of $204 million for the period, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S. Aegerion’s shares were trading at $64.40 after the bell. They closed at $73.75 on the Nasdaq on Thursday.
[EX A]:
Aegerion gets DOJ subpeona over marketing of cholesterol drug.