Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Example Input: Paragraph: In recent decades, laughter has been touted as a possible cure for many ills, including cancer and heart trouble. But could mirth also be deadly, making the phrase “I just about died laughing” as much about accuracy as it is hyperbole? On 24 March 1975, 50-year-old bricklayer Alex Mitchell of King’s Lynn in Norfolk, England, kicked the bucket while roaring with laughter at one of his favorite television shows, the comedy program The Goodies. The skit that precipitated Mitchell’s fatal fit of glee involved a kilted Scotsman’s flailing away with his bagpipe at a vicious black pudding intent upon attacking him. Mitchell was unable to stop laughing, and after twenty-five minutes of uproar gave one last “tremendous belly laugh, slumped on the settee, and died,” said his widow, who witnessed his passing. While Mitchell had expired from heart failure, what felled him was not a classic heart attack, but rather the result of an unusual inheritable heart rhythm disorder that routinely takes the lives of even apparently robust 20-somethings. Mitchell had Long QT syndrome, an affliction in which the heart is prone to experiencing long pauses between heart beats, especially after instances of excitement or exertion. After such an incident, the heart resets itself after a few beats, but in some cases (such as this) the person is not so fortunate. An odder account of a “dying laughing” incident was reported in Bangkok in 2003:  An ice cream truck driver in Thailand died while laughing in his sleep. Damnoen Saen-um, 52, laughed for about two minutes yesterday and then stopped breathing, The Nation newspaper reported. Damnoen’s wife tried to wake him up but he kept laughing. An autopsy suggested that he might have had a heart attack. “I have never seen a case like this. But it is possible that a person could have heart seizure while laughing or crying too hard in their sleep,” said Dr Somchai Chakrabhand, deputy director-general of the Mental Health Department. On the anecdotal side, Schott’s Original Miscellany attributes the death of Burmese king Nandabayin in 1599 to his having “laughed to death when informed, by a visiting Italian merchant, that Venice was a free state without a king.”  And on the fictional front, one version of the demise of Pecos Bill, the legendary cowboy hero of American folklore, has him dying from laughter after an encounter with a Boston dude:  When Bill was gettin’ on in years, a Boston man came down to New Mexico for a visit. He fancied himself a bit of a cowboy. Got himself one of them mail-order suits, don’t ya know. The ones with the lizard skin boots, a shiny brass belt buckle, a new pair of blue jeans and a huge ten gallon hat with not a speck of dust on it. Well, when Pecos Bill saw him trying to swagger into a bar, he jest lay down on the sidewalk and laughed himself to death! Not enough information was given in the (real) cases cited above to know whether laughter was a coincidental, contributory, or causal element of the deaths, but linguistically we’ve been tossing about “dying laughing” expressions for centuries; the Oxford English Dictionary records a use of this phrase as far back as 1596 (“Went they not quickly, I should die with laughing”). We also employ similar phrases to indicate intense feelings of humiliation (“I almost died of embarrassment”), and in a more generic sense we use ‘dying’ to indicate great longing (“I’m just dying to see you”) or excellence (“It’s to die for”). It therefore comes as a bit of a shocker to realize that there might be at least a smidgen of truth buried deep beneath all this overblown emoting. Claim: People have died laughing.
Example Output: Yet even if there may have been an occasional death from guffawing, it’s still possible merriment is far more healthy than harmful (at least for the ones who survive). Some studies assert laughing produces beneficial effects on physical health, including decreasing the secretion of serum cortisol (a stress hormone) and boosting the blood levels of immunoglobulin A, an antibody that fights bacterial and viral infections in the upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts. However, not everyone in the scientific community has jumped on this bandwagon: in a study reported upon in 2002 in Current Directions in Psychological Science (“Is Laughter the Best Medicine? Humor, Laughter, and Physical Health)  researchers reported that the connection between humor and wellness was “less conclusive than commonly believed” and that “future research in this area needs to be more theoretically driven and methodologically rigorous.”

Example Input: Paragraph: The Advocate reports national and local politicians, law enforcement, health care experts and social services professionals attended a summit Tuesday in Baton Rouge hosted by Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. They agreed providing mental health services to keep patients out of emergency rooms and jail is vital, but the speakers said it must be a bottom-up effort. Cynthia Kemp says she had worked toward better service in Arlington, Virginia, roughly a decade ago, raising about $800,000 for a jail diversion program and crisis intervention team. She’s now with the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Cassidy says communities need to leverage local money to collect federal grant assistance. ___ Information from: The Advocate, http://theadvocate.com Claim: Mental health care summit: Local officials must lead effort.
Example Output: Federal officials say Louisiana leaders must take the lead in addressing mental health care for their own communities.

Example Input: Paragraph: Florida’s Republican Party leadership had opposed the wording of the ballot measure, saying it was too vague and misleading and that it would allow almost anyone to obtain marijuana for the slightest medical complaint. A bitterly divided state Supreme Court voted 4-3 on Monday to allow the medical marijuana initiative to go on the November ballot, saying it met all legal requirements. If the petition is backed by 60 percent of voters in November, Florida would become the first Southern U.S. state to approve marijuana for medical use, joining 20 other states. A Quinnipiac University Polling Institute survey late last year showed 82 percent public support for the amendment if it was put on the ballot. A constitutional amendment in Florida requires 60 percent voter approval for adoption. In an unsigned 44-page ruling, the high court held that the ballot title and summary wording “are not clearly and conclusively defective.”  It went on to say the proposed amendment gave voters “fair notice as to the chief purpose and scope of the proposed amendment, which is to allow a restricted use of marijuana for certain debilitating medical conditions.”  Organizers of the “United for Care” campaign had succeeded on Friday in topping the signature requirement of 683,000 verified voter petitions from across the state. “We’re obviously thrilled with the results,” said Ben Pollara, campaign manager for the ballot drive. “The voice of Floridians will finally get to be heard on this issue.”  Florida Governor Rick Scott, a Republican, opposes the initiative, as do the Florida Medical Association and the Florida Sheriff’s Association. The Florida legislature has refused for years to authorize medical use of marijuana, although a plan to permit tightly controlled prescription of a non-euphoric marijuana derivative known as “Charlotte’s Web” for children with epileptic seizures has gained traction in the House. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and the state’s Republican leadership filed briefs in the Supreme Court last year urging the justices to deny the ballot initiative. The justices do not rule on the wisdom of an amendment, but only determine whether it deals with a single subject and whether its ballot summary properly informs the voter of what the proposal does. Scott issued a short statement expressing “empathy” for people battling diseases but said he would vote against the amendment. Charlie Crist, a one-time Republican governor of Florida who is running for the same office against Scott in November as a Democrat, welcomed the court’s decision. “I’m going to vote for it and I think it’s the right thing to do,” he said. Chief Justice Ricky Polston and Justices Jorge Labarga and Charles Canady strongly dissented on Monday. “The summary and title ‘hide the ball’ and allow this initiative to ‘fly under false colors’ regarding the severity of medical issues that qualify for marijuana use,” wrote Polston. Bondi and legislative attorneys had argued that allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana when they believe its benefits outweigh its risks for a patient was overly broad. In oral arguments in December, Polston said the amendment would allow doctors to prescribe pot for “stress” and asked whether a college student worried about final exams might be able to get marijuana legally. Backers of the amendment said marijuana would be tightly controlled and that the proposal would not lead to legalization of recreational pot smoking. Jon Mills, a former University of Florida law school dean defending the ballot language, replied that doctors - and voters - know the difference between a debilitating “disease,” such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, ALS (also called Lou Gehrig’s disease), or epilepsy, and a “condition” warranting marijuana use. Canady, a former Republican congressman, focused much of his dissent on potential conflict with federal drug laws, saying the ballot was “blatantly deceptive.”  The ballot language states that nothing in the amendment allows illegal marijuana use or violation of federal law. That cannot be, wrote Canady in a separate dissent. “The summary states that the proposed amendment ‘does not authorize violation of federal law,’ but the truth is that violations of federal law unquestionably are authorized by the amendment,” he wrote. Claim: Florida's top court puts medical marijuana initiative on November ballot.
Example Output:
Florida voters will decide in November whether to legalize medical marijuana after the state Supreme Court on Monday approved an initiative to put the measure on the ballot.