Opinion The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com 4 — Tuesday, November 19, 2019 Alanna Berger Zack Blumberg Emily Considine Emma Chang Joel Danilewitz Emily Huhman Krystal Hur Ethan Kessler Magdalena Mihaylova Mary Rolfes Michael Russo Timothy Spurlin Miles Stephenson Joel Weiner Erin White FINNTAN STORER Managing Editor Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. MAYA GOLDMAN Editor in Chief MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA AND JOEL DANILEWITZ 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 SONEIDA RODRIGUEZ | COLUMN College students should escape the vape I magine, for a second, that your health is your grade point average. Right now, regardless of how high or low your GPA is, it does not have an impact on your ability to meet your day-to-day needs. Your GPA doesn’t prohibit you from eating, sleeping or finding a decent part- time job. However, perhaps your first “Welcome Week” turned into a “Welcome Semester” and you ditched the library for tailgates. Whether it’s interviewing for your dream job or applying to graduate school later down the road, you are likely to face some regret and pain for the decisions you made when you were younger and less experienced. The same can be said about your health. Like your freshman year GPA, when it comes to your body’s health, there are no do-overs. Just as partying, skipping class and failing exams can take their toll on your GPA, habits such as vaping can come at a price. Vaping in recent years has grown in popularity and evolved into its own culture. The practice is no longer confined to smoking cessation; students taking a hit between classes or at the library are no longer an uncommon sight. As one VICE article explained, “vaping can mean different things to different people.” In essence, vaping is the inhalation of vaporized e-liquid using e-cigarettes, including JUULs and similar devices. E-liquid is either propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin mixed with nicotine or marijuana (THC or CBD) and can contain artificial flavoring. Vaping’s increasing popularity is not unique to the University of Michigan’s campus. The University’s national “Monitoring the Future” study found the percent of college students vaping marijuana and/ or nicotine doubled between 2017 and 2018. Unfortunately, we are just beginning to witness the impact that this cultural phenomenon is having on our short-term health. As of Sept. 2019, six people have died from lung illnesses related to vaping nicotine or THC. According to the same VICE article, about 450 cases of vaping-associated illness are suspected in hospitals across the United States. MeiLan K. Han, professor of internal medicine in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Michigan Medicine, told VICE that “at this time there is no guaranteed ‘safe’ form of vaping,” because the cases have been linked to e-liquid containing marijuana and nicotine. Perhaps this growing epidemic can be traced to lack of regulation. As the VICE article states, currently there is no regulation or inspection of e-cigarette manufacturers or vape shops, so there is no way to tell if a device or liquid is from a reputable source. Without regulation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, e-liquid manufacturers have free rein to mislabel the contents of their product and do not have to meet a single standard during the manufacturing process. Furthermore, the long-term health costs of vaping are just as steep as the short-term consequences. According to VICE, some studies have found vaping CBD can cause some users to experience irritability, lethargy, reduced appetite or urination, gastrointestinal distress, rashes, breathing issues, or in the worst instances, liver problems or exacerbations of mental health issues. Proponents of vaping often argue it’s a better alternative to smoking cigarettes and has enabled them to find a sense of community. However, a recent Stanford University investigation of flavored e-liquids found that even without nicotine e-cigarette use, flavorings may increase one’s heart disease risk. As important as it is to find a support group, it shouldn’t have to come at the expense of your health. While we should acknowledge that e-cigarette use has helped smokers reduce or eliminate their addiction, we can’t ignore the fact that vaping is also inspiring the next generation to become addicted to nicotine. When it comes to preventing the practice of vaping in the first place, the work of state governments is worrisome at best. As long as our state governments continue to generate revenue from tobacco product sales, the idea of states running and funding tobacco prevention programs seem to be a complete conflict of interest. During the 2019 fiscal year, all 50 states will collect over 27 billion dollars in total revenue from tobacco settlements and tobacco taxes. However, only 2.4 percent of this revenue will go towards tobacco prevention and cessation programs. Michigan’s tobacco prevention program funding currently ranks 45th out of all 50 states with a budget that is only 1.5 percent of the funding levels recommended by the CDC. The reality is that tobacco products are a significant source of revenue for the state; from a fiscal standpoint, why would the state fully fund prevention programs that jeopardize a revenue source? Placing the responsibility of preventing drug use in the hands of the same institution that is profiting from it doesn’t make sense. Luckily for college students at the University and across the country, there are ample resources available on campus to help students with substance abuse. Programs are in place within the University Health System to break down financial and immigration status barriers that might impede access to these resources for students. However, this is only accessible if students are willing to ask for help. Nevertheless, the resources available on campus represent a reactive solution to this growing epidemic. Students often do not access these resources until after vaping has become a substantial problem. As vaping continues to grow in popularity, resisting peer pressure to start vaping regularly will only prove more difficult. Consequently, high school students on their way to college do not fully grasp these consequences of vaping. If we want to make sure students are making an educated choice to vape and discourage students from starting in the first place, we need a proactive solution. As college students, our firsthand experience navigating the stressors and social pressure of college life makes us uniquely qualified to educate students on how to avoid or reduce consumption of e-liquids. College students should take the lead on educating the next generation on the consequences of vaping. As the leaders and the best, we have a responsibility to educate the next generation of college students about the reality of substance use and consequences on campus. In life, rarely do we ever purchase something without knowing its price. By failing to properly educate youth on vaping and its potential health risks, we are allowing young vapers to blindly jeopardize their health, both long term and short term. Just like your freshman year GPA, your body’s health doesn’t get a “do-over.” As a student body, we have a responsibility to take advantage of the resources available to curb vaping for those who do not believe it’s worth the expense to one’s health. We also have a responsibility to educate the next generation of college students about the consequences of vaping and the resources available to help them quit. Vaping should not be a blind choice: It should be an educated choice. Soneida Rodriguez can be reached at soneida@umich.edu. ALLISON PUJOL | COLUMN S oon after Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro secured a second term in an election that has since been widely regarded as rigged, the president enthusiastically greeted crowds of Venezuelans gathered outside the presidential palace in Caracas for an election night celebration. “This was a historic day! The day of a heroic victory! The day of a beautiful victory — of a truly popular victory,” Maduro said. But other countries don’t exactly share Maduro’s gusto for those re-election results. The Venezuelan leader has faced international backlash in the past year because he had intimidated or barred opponents from running. In January, opposition leader Juan Guaido assumed an interim presidency amid public outcry against the corrupt Maduro regime, advocating for free and fair elections. The United States, Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Britain, Germany, France, Spain and more than a dozen other members of the European Union have all recognized Guaido as the legitimate leader of Venezuela, and there are indications of rising military defections from Venezuela. Less than a week ago, El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele announced that the country would be severing diplomatic relations with Venezuela. As part of this decision, Venezuelan diplomats were given 48 hours to vacate the Venezuelan embassy. In retaliation, Maduro chose to expel the El Salvadorian diplomats from Venezuela, making it clear that relations between the two countries reached an all-time low. The abrupt diplomatic shift has caught the attention of other countries; Guatemala’s government has since indicated an interest in breaking ties with Maduro’s government on Twitter as well. Why all the hostility around Maduro’s election and past political position? Venezuela’s political stability has been the center of international conversation as a result of former President Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro’s recent terms, which have spurred what some have termed the country’s “free fall”: Hyper- inflation, food shortages, stifled dissent and mass migrations out of the country have led many to believe that the ongoing systemic crisis in Venezuela is exacerbated by an unresponsive and corrupt president. In particular, the recent waves of food and water shortages have had devastating effects on Venezuelans. Earlier this summer, BBC reported on power cuts throughout the country that forced some families in Venezuela to forgo cool air in the summer and eat rotting meat that decomposed in no-longer-cool fridges. Thus, El Salvador’s government has maintained the claim it is no longer worth it to continue diplomatic negotiations with a country whose leadership has shown an unwillingness to change its disturbing behavior. However, it would be wise to exercise some restraint in any decision to cut off negotiating efforts. Even if El Salvador has decided to cut ties with Venezuela, the United States should carefully consider its own posture towards the increasingly dictatorial regime. One relevant consideration is that sanctions and embargoes have mixed legacies both in the United States and abroad; empirical studies have shown that these policy tools are more likely to create economic pressure without the necessary political pressure to spur regime change. Failing sanctions on Iran have correlated with increasing Iranian violations of the nuclear deal, and the Cuban embargo has only further cemented the rift between Cuba and the United States, without much political progress. Democratic countries should recall that attempts to isolate other governments can only further drive Venezuela away from the ideals they wish to uphold. Even if we believe that Maduro is to blame for the crisis in Venezuela — even if we choose to forget the oft-forgotten history of U.S. meddling in South and Central America — Maduro’s claim that the West has acted to intervene in Latin American politics for personal imperialist gain certainly becomes much more persuasive when other countries refuse to make deals with Venezuela. Abandoning diplomacy only risks further pushing Venezuela into the arms of countries that will allow further oppression at Maduro’s hands. Indeed, Maduro’s solid grip on political power in Venezuela despite the mass unrest within the country has been sustained by close ties to allies such as Russia. Russia’s overall motivations in Venezuela are likely too complex to fully explore here (oil plays a large role in the two countries’ relation), but a side effect (intentional or otherwise) of the recent Russian- Venezuelan alliance is its effect as a “spoiler” for United States- based efforts in Latin America. Even if negotiations between the United States and Venezuela are difficult, the risk of some political deal remains possible yet distant given the right positive incentives. But El Salvador’s decision has closed that future off entirely, as well as attracted the ire of a country already teetering on domestic pressures and instability. The United States should be wary of attaining the same result: After all, it’s conventional wisdom, and perhaps intuitive political reasoning, that honey works better than vinegar. Allison Pujol can be reached at ampmich@umich.edu. Isolating Venezuela is a dangerous game Just like your freshman year GPA, your body’s health doesn’t get a “do-over” It would be wise to exercise some restraint in any decision to cut off negotiating efforts Addressing racial disparities within the student debt crisis JARED STOLOVE | COLUMN O ver the past 17 years, the amount of outstanding student loan debt in the U.S. has increased more than sixfold, from less than $240 billion to $1.46 trillion. As the value of student loan debt has increased, so has the longevity of the loans. More than 7 million Americans over the age of 50 were still paying off their student loans in 2017, as compared to less than 5 million in 2007. With college tuition continuing to outpace inflation year after year, this trajectory is set to continue. In response to this crisis, almost all of the Democratic presidential candidates have proposed some sort of student debt forgiveness policy. For example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has proposed cancelling up to $50,000 in student loan debt for over 40 million Americans who qualify based on their income. More radically, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has proposed forgiving all student loan debt, even for the very rich. While many of the other candidates’ plans are less ambitious than those of Warren and Sanders, all remaining candidates have identified student loan debt alleviation as an important issue. These policies are much more than “handouts” to individuals who took on more debt than they could possibly repay. While the causes of the student loan crisis are complex, it’s undeniable that government policies, such as the deregulation of for-profit colleges and the utilization of private student loan servicers, have greatly exacerbated the issue. Given the federal government’s role in causing this crisis, it has a responsibility to address its consequences. Moreover, the negative consequences of excessive student debt affect all Americans, not just debtors. Studies have shown that excessive student debt dampens wealth accumulation, hampers the growth of small businesses and pushes individuals out of lower- paying public service professions. The explanation here is simple: College graduates with large amounts of student loan debt are forced to take jobs that maximize their ability to meet their debt payments, reducing their ability to take risks or invest in long-term careers. Forgiving the existing pool of student debt is therefore in the interest of all Americans. While the Democratic candidates should be praised for their ambitious plans to tackle this issue, each of their proposals fail to address the way that the student loan crisis has disproportionately affected people of color. Data released by the Department of Education in 2017 revealed that the student debt crisis has affected Black and white Americans significantly differently. Most shockingly, the data shows that, 12 years after taking out student loans, the average African American borrower owes 12 percent more than they initially borrowed. In contrast, the average white borrower is three times more likely to have paid off their debt at that same 12-year mark. These numbers aren’t simply reflective of the correlation between race and other factors, such as income and geography; they reflect additional challenges that Black students face at every stage of their loan’s life cycle. Lawsuits against for-profit colleges that have defrauded their students have revealed that these businesses intentionally target minority students through their branding. For example, Ashford University, a largely online for- profit university with a 16 percent graduation rate, bragged in a 2018 press release that it had been recognized as a “Top 100 Minority Degree Producer.” Moreover, Black borrowers may be pushed into paying higher interest rates on their student loans than their white peers. While relatively little is known about discrimination in student loan markets, many studies have found that Black borrowers are discriminated against when they apply for credit cards, auto loans and mortgages. For example, one study found that African Americans are twice as likely as whites with similar risk profiles to be charged a subjective “markup” over their base interest rate on auto loans. However, emerging evidence shows that the largest divergence between Black and white student debt burden appears after college. A Brookings Institution study found that, at graduation, Black students owe $7,400 more than their white counterparts, a number that balloons to over $25,000 in the next four years. The study found that a quarter of this difference was attributable to lower repayment rates, which partly reflects the large degree of racial discrimination present in the labor market. However, most of the postgraduate increase in the Black-white debt gap stemmed from African Americans attending for-profit graduate schools at higher rates, suggesting that for-profit colleges also target minorities for graduate school enrollment. Each Democratic presidential candidate has attempted to position himself or herself as an advocate for people of color. Yet, no Democratic candidate has addressed any of these widespread issues in their student debt policies thus far. If Democrats are to truly enact social justice, they need to engage with the ways that every policy is filtered through a structure of intentional and unintentional racial discrimination. The existing plans, which only forgive loans based on income and attempt to control costs, will simply leave this structure intact. Jared Stolove can be reached at jstolove@umich.edu. CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.