Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.
--------
Question: Paragraph: Q: Did an FDA-approved form of “synthetic marijuana” lead to recent deaths in Illinois? A: No. The drugs that have killed four people in the last two months are unregulated and illegal. Four people have died after using drugs made to imitate the high of marijuana in Illinois over the last two months. That’s true.It’s not true that the drugs they used were approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as was claimed by a story circulating on Facebook under the headline: “Big Pharma Synthetic Marijuana Leaves 2 Dead, 89 Hospitalized In Illinois.”The number of those who died is wrong in the headline because the story was copied, for the most part, from a legitimate report that was published on April 6, when that number was accurate.The recent story that Facebook users flagged as potentially false comes from a site registered to an owner in Pakistan and differs in a couple of important ways from the original. It has a misleading headline (indicating that the drugs were made by regulated pharmaceutical manufacturers) and it starts out with a sentence that is wrong.It says at the top: “The users ingested an FDA-approved version of synthetic cannabis known as K2 or Spice.”That’s not true.The FDA has approved three drugs with synthetic versions of chemicals similar to or the same as those found in marijuana — Marinol, Syndros, and Cesamet can be used to help with nausea from cancer treatments and Marinol and and Syndros can also be used to treat weight loss in AIDS patients. The FDA is currently reviewing another drug related to marijuana that would treat epilepsy.Neither “K2” nor “Spice” has been approved by the FDA, administration spokesman Michael Felberbaum confirmed.Not only are they not approved by the FDA, those are two of the most common names under which imitation marijuana is sold. A Drug Enforcement Administration official, Susan Gibson, used them as an example when she testified in front of Congress earlier this year, saying, “Synthetic cannabinoids and their byproducts (sometimes sold under brand names such as K2 or Spice) continue to be a significant threat to public health and safety.”Synthetic cannabinoids are typically sprayed onto dried plant material and smoked or used in e-cigarettes to achieve a high similar to marijuana, but their effects can be unpredictable and dangerous, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The drugs used in the recent spate of overdoses in Illinois and surrounding states included a chemical found in rat poison, according to the Illinois Department of Public Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.NIDA: These chemicals are called cannabinoids because they are similar to chemicals found in the marijuana plant. Because of this similarity, synthetic cannabinoids are sometimes misleadingly called “synthetic marijuana” (or “fake weed”), and they are often marketed as safe, legal alternatives to that drug. In fact, they are not safe and may affect the brain much more powerfully than marijuana; their actual effects can be unpredictable and, in some cases, more dangerous or even life-threatening.The chemical composition of imitation marijuana can vary, which makes legislating against it difficult, although all 50 states have banned some form of synthetic cannabinoids, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In Illinois, imitation marijuana is illegal under two laws — one that was passed specifically to address those drugs and under the state’s Controlled Substances Act, according to Eileen Boyce, spokeswoman for the Illinois attorney general.In April 2017 the DEA temporarily added chemical compounds often used in imitation marijuana to the list of schedule 1 controlled substances, citing overdoses on the increasingly popular drug as the reason. Those compounds are set to remain on the list until April 10, 2019.So, if you’ve read the story traveling around Facebook and gotten the impression that people are dying from legal, regulated medications related to marijuana — they’re not. The imitation marijuana that is killing people is unregulated and illegal.Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk false stories flagged by readers on the social media network.Illinois Department of Public Health. WARNING: Synthetic Cannabinoids Linked to Bleeding. Accessed 17 May 2018.“Big Pharma Synthetic Marijuana Leaves 2 Dead, 89 Hospitalized In Illinois.” Trendsadays.com. 15 May 2018.Tomoski, Miroslav. “89 hospitalized and 2 dead in Illinois after using synthetic marijuana.” Herb.co. 6 Apr 2018.Gibson, Susan. Statement for hearing entitled “COMBATING THE OPIOID CRISIS: HELPING COMMUNITIES BALANCE ENFORCEMENT AND PATIENT SAFETY.” 28 Feb 2018.Felberbaum, Michael. Spokesman, Food and Drug Administration. Interview with FactCheck.org. 17 May 2018.National Institute on Drug Abuse. Drug facts — Synthetic Cannabinoids (K2/Spice). Feb 2018.National Conference of State Legislatures. Emerging Drug Threats. 7 Jun 2017.Illinois Department of Public Health. “Fourth Death Related to Synthetic Cannabinoids.” 24 Apr 2018.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Outbreak Alert: Potential Life-Threatening Vitamin K-Dependent Antagonist Coagulopathy Associated With Synthetic Cannabinoids Use. 5 Apr 2018.Boyce, Eileen. Spokeswoman, Illinois Office of the Attorney General. Interview with FactCheck.org. 17 May 2018.Federal Register. Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Six Synthetic Cannabinoids (5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA) into Schedule I. 10 Apr 2017. Claim: "FDA-approved ""synthetic marijuana"" leads to deaths in Illinois."

Answer: 0


Question: Paragraph: "Hillary Clinton is in the political crosshairs as the author of a new book alleges improper financial ties between her public and personal life. At issue in conservative author Peter Schweizer’s forthcoming book Clinton Cash are donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation during the four years she served as secretary of state. George Stephanopoulos used an interview with Schweizer on ABC This Week to point out what other nonpartisan journalists have found: There is no ""smoking gun"" showing that donations to the foundation influenced her foreign policy decisions. Still, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the donations are ""clearly illegal"" under federal law. In his view, a donation by a foreign government to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state is the same as money sent directly to her, he said, even though she did not join the foundation’s board until she left her post. ""The Constitution of the United States says you cannot take money from foreign governments without explicit permission of the Congress. They wrote that in there because they knew the danger of corrupting our system by foreign money is enormous,"" Gingrich said. ""You had a sitting secretary of state whose husband radically increased his speech fees, you have a whole series of dots on the wall now where people gave millions of dollars — oh, by the way, they happen to get taken care of by the State Department."" He continued, ""My point is they took money from foreign governments while she was secretary of State. That is clearly illegal."" PunditFact wanted to know if a criminal case against Clinton is that open and shut. Is what happened ""clearly illegal""? A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation certainly disagreed, calling Gingrich’s accusation ""a baseless leap"" because Clinton was not part of her husband’s foundation while serving as a senator or secretary of state. We did not hear from Gingrich by our deadline. Foundation basics Former President Clinton started the William J. Clinton Foundation in 2001, the year after Hillary Clinton won her first term as a New York senator. The foundation works with non-governmental organizations, the private sector and governments around the world on health, anti-poverty, HIV/AIDS and climate change initiatives. Spokesman Craig Minassian said it’s reasonable for the foundation to accept money from foreign governments because of the global scope of its programs, and the donations are usually in the form of tailored grants for specific missions. Hillary Clinton was not part of her husband’s foundation while she was a senator or secretary of state. Her appointment to the latter post required Senate confirmation and came with an agreement between the White House and Clinton Foundation that the foundation would be more transparent about its donors. According to the 2008 memorandum of understanding, the foundation would release information behind new donations and could continue to collect donations from countries with which it had existing relationships or running grant programs. If countries with existing contributions significantly stepped up their contributions, or if a new foreign government wanted to donate, the State Department would have to approve. Clinton took an active role in fundraising when she left the State Department and the foundation became the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2013. But she left the board when she announced her run for the presidency in April 2015. The Emoluments Clause So how does Gingrich come up with the claim that Clinton Foundation donations are ""clearly illegal"" and unconstitutional? The answer is something known as the Emoluments Clause. A few conservative websites have made similar arguments in recent days, including the Federalist blog. The Emoluments Clause, found in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, reads in part: ""No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."" The framers came up with this clause to prevent the government and leaders from granting or receiving titles of nobility and to keep leaders free of external influence. (An emolument, per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is ""the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites."") Lest you think the law is no longer relevant, the Pentagon ethics office in 2013 warned employees the ""little known provision"" applies to all federal employees and military retirees. There’s no mention of spouses in the memo. J. Peter Pham, director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center, said interpretation of the clause has evolved since its adoption at the Constitutional Convention, when the primary concern was about overseas diplomats not seeking gifts from foreign powers they were dealing with. The Defense Department memo, in his view, goes beyond what the framers envisioned for the part of the memo dealing with gifts. ""I think that, aside from the unambiguous parts, the burden would be on those invoking the clause to show actual causality that would be in violation of the clause,"" Pham said. Expert discussion We asked seven different constitutional law experts on whether the Clinton Foundation foreign donations were ""clearly illegal"" and a violation of the Emoluments Clause. We did not reach a consensus with their responses, though a majority thought the layers of separation between the foundation and Hillary Clinton work against Gingrich. The American system often distinguishes between public officers and private foundations, ""even if real life tends to blur some of those distinctions,"" said American University law professor Steve Vladeck. Vladeck added that the Emoluments Clause has never been enforced. ""I very much doubt that the first case in its history would be because a foreign government made charitable donations to a private foundation controlled by a government employee’s relative,"" he said. ""Gingrich may think that giving money to the Clinton Foundation and giving money to then-Secretary Clinton are the same thing. Unfortunately for him, for purposes of federal regulations, statutes, and the Constitution, they’re formally — and, thus, legally — distinct."" Robert Delahunty, a University of St. Thomas constitutional law professor who worked in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 1989 to 2003, also called Gingrich’s link between Clinton and the foreign governments’ gifts to the Clinton Foundation as ""implausible, and in any case I don’t think we have the facts to support it."" ""The truth is that we establish corporate bodies like the Clinton Foundation because the law endows these entities with a separate and distinct legal personhood,"" Delahunty said. John Harrison, University of Virginia law professor and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel from 1990 to 1993, pointed to the Foreign Gifts Act, 5 U.S.C. 7432, which sets rules for how the Emoluments Clause should work in practice. The statute spells out the minimal value for acceptable gifts, and says it applies to spouses of the individuals covered, but ""it doesn’t say anything about receipt of foreign gifts by other entities such as the Clinton Foundation."" ""I don’t know whether there’s any other provision of federal law that would treat a foreign gift to the foundation as having made to either of the Clintons personally,"" Harrison said, who added that agencies have their own supplemental rules for this section, and he did not know if the State Department addressed this. Other experts on the libertarian side of the scale thought Gingrich was more right in his assertion. Clinton violates the clause because of its intentionally broad phrasing about gifts of ""any kind whatever,"" which would cover indirect gifts via the foundation, said Dave Kopel, a constitutional law professor at Denver University and research director at the libertarian Independence Institute. Kopel also brought up bribery statutes, which would require that a gift had some influence in Clinton’s decision while secretary of state. Delahunty thought Kopel’s reasoning would have ""strange consequences,"" such as whether a state-owned airline flying Bill Clinton to a conference of former heads of state counted as a gift to Hillary Clinton. Our ruling Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation ""took money from from foreign governments while (Hillary Clinton) was secretary of state. It is clearly illegal. … The Constitution says you can’t take this stuff."" A clause in the Constitution does prohibit U.S. officials such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from receiving gifts, or emoluments, from foreign governments. But the gifts in this case were donations from foreign governments that went to the Clinton Foundation, not Hillary Clinton. She was not part of the foundation her husband founded while she was secretary of state. Does that violate the Constitution? Some libertarian-minded constitutional law experts say it very well could. Others are skeptical. What’s clear is there is room for ambiguity, and the donations are anything but ""clearly illegal."" The reality is this a hazy part of U.S. constitutional law. Claim: "The money the Clinton Foundation took from from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state ""is clearly illegal. … The Constitution says you can’t take this stuff."

Answer: 0


Question: Paragraph: The Alpine republic with a population of 8.8 million has tested around 28,400 people so far with nearly 4,900 cases and 28 deaths confirmed. It was one of the first European countries to put severe restrictions on movement and close shops and schools in response to the developments in neighboring Italy and a strong increase in coronavirus infections in its western regions. In coming weeks, Austria plans to test up to 15,000 people per day, the chancellor said. “We will also launch rapid tests, to test hundreds of thousands of people, as quickly as possible,” Kurz told a news conference. He referred to brand new tests that are comparably cheap but take longer than laboratory tests used up until now. Broad testing is key to getting a clear picture of the real infection rate and an idea of how many people have developed immunity against the virus, the chancellor said. Top priority was to delay the peak of infections as long as possible to avoid a situation like in Italy or Spain, where the health systems are overwhelmed. “Our goal is that the number of infections doubles only every 14 days and not every two, three or five days and that we will set the right measures to keep it that way once we ramp up social life again,” Kurz said. Austria’s strict measures are in place until April 13, and Kurz said there was hope that a gradual withdrawal could start the day after. A government task force developing scenarios for the “ramp up” was currently dealing with questions such as in which order schools, businesses and production should restart. Lessons from other countries showed that it was crucial to remain disciplined and to make use of “big data”. Asked what he meant by “big data”, Kurz said: “We are currently working with the Red Cross and other enterprises on ideas that could be implemented in Austria and in Europe, and which are suitable for our system and our democracy.”   Austria’s Red Cross is promoting a so-called “Stop Corona” app, which enables a user to digitally store who he meets and when. If a person shows symptoms of corona disease, these contact persons can be notified. Austria’s mobile carrier A1 Telekom Austria  is already sharing results from a motion analysis application that visualizes the movement flows of groups of people with the health authority. Claim: Austria bets on mass testing to manage coronavirus spread.

Answer:
2