Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursu.- it to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while s’ :ing in the course of professional practice or except as otb rwise authorized by ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.8401 475.980.” ORS 475.840(3) contains or refers to a number of terms that are defined by statute, including “controlled substance,” ORS 475.005(6), “marijuana,” ORS 475.005(16), “practitioner,” ORS 475.005(18), “prescription,” ORS 475.005(19), “knowingly,” ORS 161.105(8), “intentionally,” ORS 161.085(7), and “possess,” ORS 161.015(9). When the legislature provides a specific meaning for a word used in a statute, courts have no authority to add or subtract from that definition. See, e.g., State v. Jones, 339 Or 438, 445, 121 P3d 657 (2005) . ORS 475.005 does not include a definition of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an initial communication within the meaning of the fdcpa includes the initiation of a lawsuit
B. holding that statutory words must be given their ordinary contemporary meaning
C. holding that by using a very specific meaning of the words oral communication the legislature limited the reach of a statutory suppression remedy
D. recognizing that we must give meaning to all the words in the claims
E. recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.