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: "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."

A: Unlike marijuana, medical cannabis oil cannot get you high.
****
Q: "While these studies examined prostate cancer mortality rates and treatment outcomes, monetary costs are an important part of the larger conversation about the value of screening. There are significant financial costs associated with population-wide screenings, along with the follow-up diagnostic procedures and treatments that these studies suggest are of little benefit. The reporter should have referenced costs of screening and treatments at least briefly. There are two studies involved here, each with its own methodology, outcomes and limitations. Under the circumstances the news report describes the findings adequately, using a broad brush. The report states that the U.S. study found no decline in death risk in the screened population, while the European study showed a 20 percent reduced risk of deathyet it also documented considerable overtreatment. The reporter gets points for using the always valuable ""number needed to treat"" measure to describe the European findings: 48 additional men would need to be treated to prevent one death from prostate cancer. The story focuses in part on the harms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The story is based on results of two high-quality clinical trials, and it describes the methodologies sufficiently. The story does an excellent job of laying out the caveats very early: that the results won't end the controversy over the value of prostate cancer screening; and that the studies continue and may provide clearer answers in the future. The reporter gets extra points for mentioning too that the two studies aren't directly comparable. The report does nothing to exaggerate the effects of prostate cancer or its treatments. The reporter includes comments from the lead authors of the two studies, the author of a related editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, and a physician representing the American Cancer Society. The story adequately explains that screening options include the PSA blood test and the digital rectal exam. The story also refers to the options for treatment after a cancer is identified, indicating that ""there's no agreement on the best treatment approach""watchful waiting, surgery, hormone therapy or radiation. The wide use of the PSA test is implied throughout the story. No claims are made for the novelty of the screening techniques or the findings of the study. The story does not appear to draw directly from press releases of NIH, the Washington University School of Medicine, or others publicizing the results."

A: Studies don't end prostate cancer test controversy
****
Q: "There was no discussion of costs of vegetable consumption. Although this could be considered general knowledge, mention of typical costs for vegetables would have been a nice addition. The research on which this story was based compared increasing amounts of vegetable (or fruit and vegetable, or fruit) intake with intake of 0 1.1 servings per day. The study actually only found a statistically significant improvement in the rate of decline for individuals eating 2.5 or more servings of vegetables per day. The story said the effect came with "more than two servings of vegetables per day"" which is too imprecise. In addition, the benefit to be obtained through increased vegetable consumption was characterized as people appearing 5 years younger at the end of the six-years or having 40 percent less mental decline It would have been helpful to provide some idea of the difference this actually represents. The five-year appearance change estimate comes directly from the discussion section of the research paper though the authors of that paper did not provide details on how they arrived at the estimate. This story was not actually about a treatment per se but rather about the possible association between an eating pattern and age-related decline in function. This story reported on a prospective study of cognitive decline in older individuals. Although it did not explicitly mention the nature of the study design, the story included the caveat that the findings don't prove that vegetables reduce mental decline, but add to mounting evidence pointing in that direction. The story would have been stronger if it had included information on the methodology for assessing dietary intake. No obvious elements of disease-mongering The story used several different sources. This story did not discuss other means to delay or diminish the rate of cognitive decline with age. This story reported on a study of vegetable and fruit consumption in older adults in the Chicago area vegetables and fruits that are clearly widely available. The story begins, ""New research on vegetables and aging gives mothers another reason to say 'I told you so.' "" Clearly, this is not a new idea, but the story is about new evidence. Because the story used multiple sources, it does not appear to have relied solely or largely on a news release."

A:
Study: Vegetables may keep brains young
****