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.

Q: The Democrat announced that legislation he’ll propose in his 2020 State of the State agenda on Jan. 8 will also prohibit online, phone and mail-order sale of e-cigarettes to anyone but registered retailers. “Vaping is a public health crisis, claiming too many lives and making countless others sick in a short period of time,” Cuomo said in a statement. “The problem is made worse by unscrupulous vaping companies who are targeting young people with candy flavored products like cotton candy and bubble gum and other marketing ploys.”   The legislation would codify emergency regulations adopted by state health officials in September to ban flavored e-cigarette sales. That ban is on hold pending a court challenge by the vaping industry led by the Vapor Technology Association. Cuomo said nearly 40% of 12th graders and 27% of all high school students are using e-cigarettes, with flavored products driving the increase in use. Cuomo said his legislation will also empower the state Department of Health to ban the sale of vaping carrier oils that have been blamed for respiratory ailments. Action against e-cigarettes has gained urgency amid the rise of a vaping illness nationwide. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that as of Dec. 17, more than 2,500 people across the United States have reported respiratory issues related to vaping and 54 people are known to have died.

A: Cuomo to propose ban on e-cig flavors and ads aimed at youth.
****
Q: "On May 14, 2013, a federal agency recommended reducing the threshold for evidence of drunken driving from a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 to 0.05. That means having a glass of wine at dinner might make a person drunk, a spokesman for the Tavern League of Wisconsin told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the same day. Under a BAC standard of 0.05, a person could get nailed for DUI after one drink? Tavern League’s evidence The statement was made by Scott Stenger, a Madison lobbyist whose clients include the tavern league. He told us he based his claim on news articles about the 0.05 recommendation, including a report from the Journal Sentinel and The Associated Press, and a chart on blood-alcohol concentration from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The news covered the recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates transportation accidents and makes recommendations based on its findings. The board said states should cut the current blood-alcohol level for evidence of intoxication as part of a series of ideas aimed at reducing alcohol-related highway deaths. In its report, the Associated Press said 0.05 is ""about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 pounds,"" and that a drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 4 ounces of wine, or 1 ounce of 80-proof alcohol ""in most studies."" Meanwhile, the Texas agency chart that Stenger cited says its BAC data comes from another federal body, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which works to prevent highway crashes. That data says essentially what Stenger and AP did: A 100-pound woman could reach 0.05 after one drink. (Incidentally, both the AP and the chart used by the Texas agency said a 160-pound man could reach 0.05 after consuming two drinks in one hour.) So, there’s evidence that a limited group of drinkers -- women weighing under 120 pounds -- could be legally drunk after one drink, if the standard for drunken driving were reduced to a blood-alcohol level of 0.05. What other evidence is out there? BAC calculators We checked three online calculators that provide blood-alcohol concentration estimates based on various factors, including gender and weight. They generally found a BAC of less than 0.05 for a 100-pound woman consuming one drink. The calculator at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (which also has a smartphone app), says the BAC would be 0.03. A more detailed calculator from the University of Notre Dame’s Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.04 for a 5-ounce glass of wine, if the wine is red and 12.5 percent alcohol. And the calculator at Central Connecticut State University’s Office of Alcohol and Drug Education says the BAC would be 0.05 after a 5-ounce glass of table wine. So, why do the blood-alcohol concentration figures vary? Well, as we noted, all of the figures are estimates. The Wisconsin DOT also points out that besides gender, weight and the amount of alcohol consumed, other factors are in play. Your BAC will be higher if you drink faster or drink on an empty stomach. Women reach higher BACs faster because they have less water in their bodies and more adipose tissue (fat), which is not easily penetrated by alcohol. Jan Grebel, a chemical test supervisor for the DOT, told us about another factor: If you drink frequently, your liver can break down alcohol more efficiently, but if you don’t, your BAC would be higher after even one drink. Grebel quoted to us from a chart she utilizes when testifying in court in drunken driving cases. She said the chart estimates the BAC at 0.047 -- nearly 0.05 -- for a 100-pound woman after one drink. But Grebel said that would be the maximum BAC in that instance. Most people would not reach 0.05 after one drink, she said. Our rating The Tavern League of Wisconsin said a proposal to make 0.05 the standard for drunken driving would mean that having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk. The statement is accurate, in that it’s possible an individual could reach 0.05 after one drink. But it needs additional information, namely that the situation would apply only in a small number of instances and would depend on other factors, such as drinking on an empty stomach."

A: A 0.05 standard for drunken driving means having a glass of wine at dinner could make a person drunk.
****
Q: "The story indicated that the robotic procedure was more expensive than a standard surgical prostatectomy. In addition, it included information about the expenses associated with obtaining and running the equipment. It is not clear from this story what, if any, the benefits are of having a robotic prostatectomy instead of a standard surgical prostatectomy. There was no discussion about the decreased hospital stay or reduced recovery time that has been reported with this approach. Although these are short term benefits, they may be of interest to certain patients. In this sense, the story was the flip side of what we often see – exaggerated benefts and no mention of harms. This story mentions harms (although data comes from biased literature review) and no benefits. The story provides readers with some potentially interesting questions to raise with a doctor (e.g. how many of these surgeries have you done using this equipment; is this approach the best for the type of cancer I have, i.e. early or more advanced). The story mentions in passing potential harms such as impotence and incontinence, referencing a study published in October. However – the story did not really follow-up on one of the key issues it raised. For example, the story mentioned that a surgeon will have to do 80 procedures with this equipment to ensure that they don’t leave any cancerous tissue behind. The story could have completed this thought and indicated the ramifications of leaving cancerous tissue behind in terms of health consequences. The story indicated that the publication reported on examined data from a number of previously published reports. The story then extracted several salient facts to highlight some variables that affect outcomes of interest to patients. The story would have been improved by noting the weaknesses or biases associated with a simple literature review. This is not a systematic review of the literature or a meta-analysis. This is simply a literature review and the methods are flawed — for example, the authors chose 68 papers of 412 on basis of selection/inclusion criterion ""…those with greatest relevance to the paper."" The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. It might have been useful to note that not all prostate cancers result in morbidity or mortality meaning that not all prostate need active treatment. The story does not use any comments from experts in the field without a direct connection to the study reported on. The story mentioned that the authors of the study reported on did not compare robotic surgery complication rates to traditional surgery rates. In a perfect world, we would have hoped that the story would have investigated these data points anyway. The story mentioned that robotic prostatectomy was the ‘dominant approach’ to this procedure in the United States. But that is an erroneous statement by the physician who is from Australia. It is certainly booming in popularity, but that doesn’t make it the dominant approach. The story indicated that robotic prostatectomy is not a new procedure. Does not appear to rely exclusively on a press release."

A:
Robot prostate surgery has downsides, needs more data
****