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.

Let me give you an example: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release."
The answer to this example can be: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Here is why: The paragraph mentions that "Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be." which is considered evidence for the output. Thus, the output is a valid claim.

OK. solve this:
The order targets vape pens, vape cartridges, aerosol products, and inhalers that use oil-based vaping materials. It doesn't apply to medical marijuana vaping devices designed for marijuana flower, which don't use oil-based materials. The commission is also asking testing labs if they can check for vitamin E acetate. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified vitamin E as a culprit in vaping-associated lung injuries. The labs currently test for contaminants like heavy metals. Suffolk Superior Court Judge Douglas Wilkins had ruled last week that marijuana cultivated for medical use, including oil-based vaping materials, must be exempted from Republican Gov. Charlie Baker's four-month ban on vaping materials starting Tuesday unless the cannabis commission took action since the commission is the single state entity authorized to regulate marijuana. Tuesday's action by the commission continues the ban for oil-based vaping materials for medical use. The vaping industry is also challenging the broader ban in court. Shops caught selling vaping materials during the ban face fines of up to $1,000 per offense. There is no prohibition against individuals owning or using vaping products. The industry has argued the ban will destroy the state's $331 million nicotine vapor products industry and irreparably harm local businesses. Baker issued the emergency ban in September in response to lung illnesses attributed to use of e-cigarette products. State health officials last week announced that a third state resident died from a vaping-related lung illness. The state Department of Public Health announced Wednesday that a man in his 50s from Worcester County died, after telling officials he vaped both nicotine and the marijuana compound THC. Officials say more than 200 suspected cases of vaping-associated lung injury have been reported to the health department since September. The action by the cannabis commission comes as state lawmakers prepare to debate a bill that would ban flavored vaping and tobacco products, including menthol and mint flavors. Lawmakers argue that the flavored products are meant to entice young teens into smoking. Anti-smoking activists praised the Massachusetts House for taking up the measure. "Ending the sale of all flavored tobacco products, including mint and menthol, is smart public health policy and will prevent thousands of kids in Massachusetts from becoming enticed into a lifetime of addiction," said Kevin O'Flaherty from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Some convenience store owners oppose the ban on menthol cigarettes and have pressed lawmakers to eliminate that portion of the bill. House lawmakers plan to debate the measure on Wednesday.
Answer:
Commission's order supports ban on marijuana vaping products.