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.

