O
n Tuesday, e-cigarette
maker Juul announced
it would remove their
fruit-flavored products from store
shelves, caving into pressure
from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. A week earlier,
Florida voted to ban indoor
vaping through, of all things, a
constitutional amendment that
also banned offshore drilling.
Needless to say, this November
has been a rough month for Juul
and other e-cig companies. While
this is by no means a death blow,
it is a sign that the days of the
unregulated e-cig industry are
over. Good riddance.
While
the
Trump
administration is widely, and
rightfully, seen as dysfunctional,
the FDA under Trump-appointed
Scott
Gottlieb,
commissioner
of food and drugs, is coming
down hard on tobacco and
e-cig makers. In addition to
giving e-cig manufacturers an
ultimatum to pull fruit-flavored
products off the market, Gottlieb
is
moving
to
ban
menthol
cigarettes, which were exempted
from the immediate ban on
flavored cigarettes under the
Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act. Gottlieb
has even proposed using the
FDA’s regulatory power to force
tobacco companies to reduce
nicotine in cigarettes.
All of these regulatory actions
are focused on combating one
public health problem: adolescent
smoking.
According
to
the
findings, the number of U.S. high
school students who reported
being current e-cigarette users
increased 78 percent between
2017 and 2018 to 3.05 million (or
20.8 percent). Numbers among
middle
school
students
rose
48 percent to 570,000 (or 4.9
percent). I think we call too many
things “epidemics” these days,
but if youth e-cig use does not cut
it as an epidemic, what does?
Many people will take issue
with the FDA’s actions against
e-cigs,
but
any
action
that
increases social good is bound to
have detractors. Let us inspect
the arguments presented by the
pro-vape lobby.
Perhaps the biggest pro-vape
argument is that e-cigs are safer
than traditional cigarettes and
we should therefore count our
blessings that people prefer a
Juul over a Camel] Cigarettes
and tobacco kill half the people
that use them and its seems e-cigs
are indeed a safer option because
they don’t involve the combustion
of plant matter. This smoke is
what creates the cancer-causing
chemicals that make smoking so
dangerous.
However,
e-cigs
are
not
harmless. It is important to
note the FDA is not moving
against all e-cigs, only flavored
ones. Currently, e-cig flavoring
ingredients
are
unregulated.
That should concern everyone.
A
Harvard
University
study
found 39 of 51 e-cig flavors
tested contain diacetyl. What
is diacetyl? It is an organic
compound that when vaporized
and inhaled can cause a serious
lung disease called bronchiolitis
obliterans.
The
disease
is
nicknamed “Popcorn Lung” after
it was discovered in workers at a
microwave popcorn factory who
were exposed to—you guessed
it—diacetyl. While microwave
popcorn manufacturers removed
diacetyl from their products in
2007, e-cig users and those who
inhale the secondhand smoke are
being exposed to this potentially
dangerous chemical regularly.
E-cig makers are not required
to list the ingredients of their
flavors, so your favorite vapor
flavor may very well contain
diacetyl or other potentially
hazardous chemicals. Regardless
of how you feel about e-cigs,
I hope we can all agree that
smokers should know exactly
what they are inhaling.
Gottlieb and the FDA are not
coming for flavored e-cigs and
menthol cigarettes because of
chemicals, but instead because
flavored
products
are
more
attractive to young people. Even
if there was no malicious intent,
e-cig makers who market flavors
such as mango and Skittles are
basically waving a big flag to
young people saying “come and
try me, I am fun and flavorful.”
Imagine
if
Skittles-flavored
oxycodone
hit
the
market.
Would you approve? If you think
I am over-exaggerating, just
remember
nicotine
addiction
kills 7 million people globally
every year. Yes, those deaths
are
not
caused
by
nicotine
directly, but 30.7 percent of teen
e-cig
users
become
smokers
(includeing the use of cigarettes,
cigars and hookahs) compared to
only 8.1 percent in teens who do
not vape. Because 90 percent of
adult smokers start by the age of
18, you can see why that vape-to-
tobacco statistic is striking.
E-cig
companies
love
to
advertise their products as a way
for people to get off of tobacco.
If Juul and other companies
truly
believe
their
products
can help people quit, then they
should submit their products
to the rigorous FDA approval
process that all medical devices
go through. But these companies
will not do that. Why? Because
their objective is to make money,
and hooking adolescents, with
their developing brains, on either
nicotine or marijuana is a great
way to make customers keep
coming back. Removing flavored
e-cigs from the market will make
adolescents less likely to start
the habit because tobacco flavor
(which would not be banned) is
not nearly as appealing.
Good riddance to flavored
e-cigarettes. Good riddance to
the Juul.
A
s a young girl, she was first
immersed in the world of
politics as the daughter of
the mayor of Baltimore, Thomas
D’Alesandro. In the
1970s,
she
began
working on California
Gov.
Jerry
Brown’s
presidential campaign
and went on to become
the
chair
for
the
California Democratic
Party.
After
being
persuaded
to
start
her
own
campaign,
she was sworn in as
a congresswoman in
1987 and rose quickly through the
ranks of the Democratic Party.
After the 2006 elections, Nancy
Pelosi became the first female
speaker of the House.
Though she has been a barrier
breaker and continues to be one
of the most powerful people —
and women — in Washington,
many candidates ran on an anti-
Pelosi platform in this year’s
midterms. There are currently 11
Democratic incumbents and 47
former candidates firmly vowing
to vote against Pelosi to be the
Speaker of the House in January
when the new congress is sworn
in. This coalition of congressional
elects and current incumbents
seldom raises any substantive
policy differences with Pelosi.
Even before 2018, the name
Nancy Pelosi has been used by
many Republicans as shorthand
for
everything
wrong
with
Washington, a signal to ramp
up their base against “coastal-
elite liberals.” Their argument
against Pelosi is because many
Republicans have succeeded in
making her a target, a new, less
easily demonized leader would
be better for the party, as if
Republicans won’t gladly vilify
anyone up for the job before she
or he is even sworn in.
Yet,
the
House
of
Representatives will be controlled
once again by the Democrats come
January after Democrats gained
37 seats to take at least a 232 to
198 majority as of publication
time with 5 seats currently
undecided.
Meanwhile,
the
Republicans maintained control
of the Senate by flipping they
have flipped four seats as of now.
Though this blue wave could yield
as many as 40 seats, it has already
resulted in the most Democratic
gains since Watergate. These
wins are absolutely a testament
to the fantastic and inspiring
candidates,
as
well
as
the
amazing work done
by progressive groups
like
Emily’s
List,
Run for Something,
Moms
Demand
Action,
Indivisible,
etc. However, credit
must also be given
to
Pelosi
and
her
plan to elect these
exciting
candidates:
avoid responding to
every terrible thing
President Donald Trump says
or does and be disciplined about
the
Democratic
message
on
health care. With the benefit of
hindsight, it is almost certain that
the focus on health care delivered
many districts, especially those
that flipped from red to blue, to
the Democrats.
Though there were Democratic
losses in the Senate and great
strides made in the House, there
is only one Democratic leader
being asked to step down, and
it’s not Chuck Schumer, the New
York senator and Senate minority
leader. Both Pelosi and Schumer
have faced a plethora of criticism,
including calls for newer, younger
leadership, but it comes with
the job. Still, there is something
more visceral about the repeated
denunciations of Pelosi rather
than Schumer, despite the fact
that they share similar identity
demographics and policy stances.
So what gives? Well, there is
only one significant difference
between the two: gender.
While some might roll their
eyes at attributing the hostility
aimed at Pelosi to sexism, it is
justified simply because it holds
a similar thread to the hostility
aimed at Hillary Clinton during
the 2016 presidential campaign.
In her book “What Happened”,
Clinton describes the fact that
her approval rating plummeted
when she was seen as advocating
for herself (like running for
president,
for
example),
but
soared when she was working in
the service of others, particularly
men (serving as President Barack
Obama’s secretary of state, for
example). It seems as though the
same phenomenon is true for
Pelosi, and if it’s true for them
— two white, privileged women
— it might as well be true for all
women. Simply put, America does
not like female leaders.
Despite the politicking against
her, it is almost guaranteed that
current Speaker Paul Ryan will
have to pass the gavel to Pelosi
as the new speaker of the House.
And for good reason. Pelosi is
good at her job. Recently, former
Obama adviser David Axelrod,
in conversation with journalist
Gloria Borger on his CNN podcast
The Axe Files, said the Affordable
Care Act would not have passed
had it not been for Pelosi. Not
only did Pelosi craft the health
care
message
for
Democrats
to run on in 2018, she made
this policy platform possible
years earlier during the Obama
administration. Moreover, both
agreed she is one of the most
effective and experienced party
leaders in recent memory.
Pelosi will be just fine. She
is likely to be voted in as the
next speaker of the House,
but she exemplifies a broader
American problem. In order to
prepare for 2020, Americans
— especially Democrats— need
to begin to grapple with the
extra harassment and gendered-
criticisms women face when
they become leaders. All of the
inspiring women who won in the
midterms and are now headed
to Washington can certainly
aid the country in imagining
woman leadership looks like.
Still, there are likely to be several
Democratic
women
running
for president in 2020: Kamala
Harris,
Kirsten
Gillibrand,
Elizabeth Warren and others
are
contemplating
bids.
If
Democrats want to win, these
women just might be their best
bet. Democrats should not kick
off the lead up to 2020 by treating
Pelosi with the same gendered-
loathing directed at Clinton in
2016, especially because the
hostility
toward
Pelosi
was
drummed up by Republicans
as a political weapon to win
back the House. Instead, they
need to consider how this sexist
contempt will ultimately hurt
their candidates, and therefore,
any hope they have of winning
the White House in 2020.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A —Monday, November 19, 2018
Emma Chang
Ben Charlson
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
DAYTON HARE
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
ALEXA ST. JOHN
Editor in Chief
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND
ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
ALI SAFAWI | COLUMN
Good riddance to the Juul
What the contempt for Nancy Pelosi tells us about 2020
MARISA WRIGHT | COLUMN
Ali Safawi can be reached at
asafawi@umich.edu.
Marisa Wright can be reached at
marisadw@umich.edu.
D
espite the fervor with
which I despise the manic
pixie dream girl archetype,
I have always found the film “(500)
Days of Summer” to be undeniably
charming. To the uninitiated, it is
the indie tale of Summer played
by Zooey Deschanel, who doesn’t
believe in love, and Tom, played by
Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is an
unapologetic romantic, and their
relationship spanning a year and a
half. They have their ups and downs
as Tom slowly falls in love and
Summer slowly does not.
In a scene toward the end of
the film (after they have broken
up), they run into one another and
Summer invites Tom to a party at her
apartment. Tom is thrilled: This is
his chance to win her back. The night
of the party, the screen splits in two,
one side showing Tom’s expectations
for the night, the other showing
reality. Tom’s expectations split with
what the audience perceives as he is
greeted at the door with a kiss, and
they spend the night flirting, talking
and laughing. The spark is reignited,
and Tom gets the girl. It is the
expected and highly satisfying rom-
com ending.
On the other side of the screen,
however, Tom arrives to a cordial but
somewhat awkward greeting from
Summer. They don’t talk one-on-one
at all, and at the end of the evening
Tom sees Summer showing off her
engagement ring to another party
goer. Ouch.
When I was in high school, I had
spectacular fantasies that played
out in my head. I imbued them with
intricate detail, making them as
plausible as I could, as if the more
particular they were the more likely
I could will them into being. These
fantasies
became
expectations
that led to a general and persistent
disappointment in my reality. I had a
lot of feelings from ages 12 to 17, as I
think most people do—for example I
wrote one day (likely in response to
one of those expectations failing to
come to fruition), “I’m feeling a lot
of things, but most prominent is an
eagerness to have one of my feelings
validated by an actual event.”
I don’t remember what prompted
me to write this down, but reading
it now makes me chuckle. I’m a bit
in awe of my ability to condense the
entire teenage girl experience into
one sentence. I watched a lot of movies
and read a lot of books at 14 and 15.
Like many girls, I was obsessed with
romantic dramas, finding in them the
promise that I, too, could have a grand
dramatic arc in my life.
I moved through high school
perpetually comparing my unrealistic
expectations to my banal reality.
There are only so many experiences
the average teen goes through. I went
to school, had friends, went to movies
on the weekends, did my homework
and spent time with my family. I
probably had a better-than-average
life and a better-than-average high
school experience. For someone like
me, though, who inhaled popular
culture, there were stark contrasts at
every turn.
I was only granted access to
much of the human experience
through back channels: TV shows,
movies, novels and second-hand
stories. I tried to shove my own
experiences into these molds like an
ugly stepsister with a too-small glass
slipper, impatient to have my own
stories to tell.
My life seemingly had no plot,
and I felt I was being denied a rite of
passage. So, I spun my own stories. As
I fell asleep each night, I scripted my
life in a way believable enough that
I would wake up the next morning
confident that this alternate reality
could unfold if only this or that fell
into place.
I imagined the boy I had a crush
on since sophomore year would
finally realize he liked me. I imagined
I would suddenly learn to love
exercising and get into amazing shape
so I wouldn’t always feel like the girl
who might be beautiful if she wasn’t
a few pounds over the heroine chic
ideal. I imagined I would be struck
with a lightning bolt of inspiration
and finally find the persistence to
write a novel. I had the dedication
already written.
I became very good at telling
myself these stories, and they felt
more and more real to me. In the
20 minutes it took me to fall asleep,
I would have a first kiss with a boy,
become a published author and run a
marathon. I was invested in each plot,
and I followed myself like a character
in a book. I felt what she felt. I woke up
in the morning hopeful, then lived the
same day I had lived the day before.
And the day before that.
So, I had a lot of feelings in high
school. The problem was I imagined
most of them. I craved that swell of
emotion you feel when something
spectacular happens to a character
you have been following for five
seasons or five hundred pages. I had
never really felt any of those things
in real life. I had to create artificial
placeholders.
Since coming to college, I have
experienced one or two of the things
I used to only play out in my head. I
have had some of the feelings that
I craved at 14 validated by actual
events. But when milestones are only
imagined, it is easy to strip away any
undesirable fallout. There are no
fights with imaginary boyfriends,
and you don’t actually have to sweat
if you only imagine losing weight.
Reality is always more complicated
and a little harder than just the girl
getting the guy.
Now, I think often of another,
smaller scene from “(500) Days of
Summer.” One of Tom’s roommates
is describing his dream girl in
comparison to his current girlfriend.
She would have bigger boobs and
different hair and be more into sports.
“But,” he says, “truthfully, Robin’s
better than the girl of my dreams. She’s
real.” An imaginary life is perfect, but
it pales in comparison to the tangible
messiness we get to live every day.
KENDALL HECKER | COLUMN
Expectations versus reality
Kendall Hecker can be reached at
kfhecker@umich.edu.
“T
he sexual orientation
of my parents has
had zero effect on the
content of my character.”
That February night in 2011 was
particularly cold. In the dark confines
of my room, I watched as then-19-year-
old Zach Wahls stood before the Iowa
House of Representatives. Raised by
two mothers, Wahls spoke out against
the proposed House Joint Resolution 6,
which would ban civil unions for same-
sex partners in the state. His heartfelt
speech unsettled me, as the concept of
having to defend the legitimacy of his
own parents seemed so degrading. Yet,
his conviction and sincerity gave me a
glimpse of hope for the future.
Nonetheless, his words were still
too premature for the chamber, as
it moved to pass the committee by a
majority vote.
I turned off my computer, and the
dimming of the screen was met by a
frigid darkness.
Coming to understand my sexuality
at the start of this decade was a
particularly tumultuous circumstance.
Relative to years past, great progress
for the LGBT community had been
made. Yet, like with many other
struggles, as small strides toward
justice commence, strong currents of
pushback erupt.
As I began to develop what being
gay meant to me, our nation began to
develop what being gay meant for it. I
knew each step toward acceptance of
myself also came with an inherent loss:
an inability to marry the person I loved,
the inability to serve our country’s
military and invitation to a newfound
scrutiny.
I watched as national leaders
warned
of
the
dangers
of
“homosexuals,”
expressing
toxic
rhetoric: “They are intolerant. They
are hateful. They are vile …and are
engaged...in an agenda that will destroy
them and our nation.” I remember
getting onto the school bus to hear
the news that North Carolina voters
passed Amendment One, banning
same-sex marriage in the state. Despite
my initial hurt, these events did not
constantly reverberate in my thoughts.
But one thing I could not shake out
of my mind were the words of Zach
Wahls, specifically, “the content of
(his) character.” This phrase, albeit
simple, evoked the sentiment of civil
rights activists also dedicated to a more
perfect union. Maybe I saw myself in
him – I saw someone I could maybe
become one day.
Years have passed since those nights
alone in my room, and much progress
has come along with it. We have seen
the enshrinement of marriage equality
in our laws, the repeal of Don’t Ask
Don’t Tell and a surge in public support
for LGBTQ rights.
Yet, during the midterm election on
Nov. 6 midterm election, something
felt different.
Finally, this abundant societal
change became reflected in our
nation’s representatives. In Colorado,
we saw the election of Jared Polis, the
nation’s first openly gay governor. In
New Hampshire, two transgender
women, Gerri Cannon and Lisa
Bunker, won seats in the state House
of Representatives. Sharice Davids,
an openly gay candidate in Kansas,
joined Debra Haaland of New Mexico
as the first two Native American
women elected to Congress. Voters
in Massachusetts handily defeated a
proposal to repeal transgender rights
and protections. After almost a week
delay, the state of Arizona will elect
the nation’s first openly bisexual U.S.
Senator. At the local, state and national
level, a wave of LGBTQ candidates was
voted into office.
There was one person also elected
on Nov. 6 who, though not gay himself,
allowed me to see just how far I—and
this nation—have come. Zach Wahls,
the once 19-year-old student who
spoke in defense of his parents, was
elected to the Iowa state Senate. In
2011, the people who he stood before
may not have been ready, but finally,
seven years later, the people of Iowa
were.
So on a Tuesday evening seven
years later, I again found myself in front
of a screen, seeing the same man whose
words I used to watch night after night
in secrecy – and resignation. Except
this time, that feeling of longing and
sadness was replaced with hope. This
time, the cold confines of my childhood
bedroom were replaced with the
comfort of friends, tightly packed onto
a worn living room couch. Each one of
our faces was marked with a cautiously
optimistic glimpse of hope. And as each
one of us stared at the screen, we were
beginning to see people that looked just
like us staring back.
ALEX KUBIE | COLUMN
Alex Kubie can be reached at
akubie@umich.edu.
Seven years in the making
MARISA
WRIGHT