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

