by Jeff Gillman
The current system for controlling pests that have already invaded our shores is sound, in that it seeks to either limit the spread of these pests or to eradicate them, depending on what the specific situation calls for. The states, rather than the federal government, are in charge, which makes a lot of sense because many plants are problems in one state but not in another. For example, the Norway maple is a fast-growing, invasive tree in the eastern United States but it is relatively well behaved in the Upper Midwest. Massachusetts has the ability to regulate the sale of this tree, while Minnesota has the ability to allow its sale to continue unregulated.
When the federal government does determine that a particular species is a national problem, APHIS can take a role in its regulation. It has done so with such weeds as the catclaw mimosa (a native of the subtropical states) and wild raspberry (a nonnative), for which it requires a permit for importation or interstate movement.
Right-Wing Rating The current system of protection against invasive plants strikes the right balance. It allows trade, targets the worst pests, and encourages different governments to work together.
Left-Wing Rating The current system does a reasonable job of controlling pests, though more attention should be paid to pests that damage habitats, not just agriculture.
Policy Option Two: Federal and State Governments Should Be More Strict
There are many pests that have made it through our screening process in the last decade and are causing major problems. The emerald ash borer, an insect introduced to the United States from Asia in the late 1990s, is decimating our native ash trees in the Midwest. Japanese dodder, a plant native to Asia, was introduced to California in the early 2000s. It is parasitic on other plants and can even kill them. With examples like these, along with the estimate by some researchers that almost half of our endangered species are threatened because of invasive species, we need better options.
We need more stringent regulations at both the federal and the state levels. These may come in the form of tighter importation regulations or greater attention to invasive species that are already here. Most environmental groups would probably prefer both.
At the federal level, allow plants and animals into this country only if they are on an approved list. This type of limitation would better control potentially problematic species. It would certainly cost a significant amount of money to enforce, but the restrictions might actually be easier to enforce because agents would only need to be familiar with the relatively small number of species on the approved list. Any unfamiliar species would not be allowed across the border. This type of regulation would definitely limit the importation and sale of new plant species.
Controlling invasive plants and noxious weeds once they are here is a much more difficult issue. The biggest question is, are native species worth saving at any cost? The answer is easy: yes. Every species of plant has its own set of genes that, if lost, might well be lost forever. This isn’t merely an ethical question. It is possible, and even likely, that native plants in danger of being lost contain chemicals that are useful to us medically or culturally. Indeed, we already know of many native plants that contain useful compounds that could potentially be beneficial to our health. And we would lose not only the plant, but also the animals that depend on it, further threatening the ecosystem.
Plants all have their own niches, or places where they fit into an environment in terms of their preferences for soil type, water, and nutrition. The problem with invasives is that they tend to fit well into the niche of a plant that is already established, or into a niche that is becoming more prevalent. For example, invasives such as buckthorn in the North and kudzu in the South enjoy the conditions that are present at the edges of forests. As we have harvested timber over the last 400 years or so, we have made more and more edges available, creating more environments for these plants to invade. Without human intervention to control these and other invasive and noxious plants, desirable native plants will be unable to compete.
Right-Wing Rating We can live with some trade restrictions and government eradication efforts that are narrowly drawn to protect our crops and food security. Saving our native wildlife is a worthy goal, but it is too costly to try to eradicate or contain every nonnative species that potentially threatens a native species.
Left-Wing Rating Greater control of invasives would mean saving our native habitats and creatures. Prevention is the key, because the cost and environmental damage is too great once an invasive takes hold.
Policy Option Three: The Government Needs to Relax
Whether we like it or not, the United States is a part of a global ecosystem. That means that plants, insects, mammals, and every other creature under the sun has been so thoroughly displaced that there just isn’t much room for the idea of “native” anymore. While trying to prevent some of the most damaging pests from reaching our shores might be necessary, we should not be attempting to exclude species that we don’t even know are harmful. Furthermore, spending money to prevent a native plant from moving between states is a waste of resources.
In many cases, native plants aren’t the appropriate plants for our country anymore. We have created a new ecology in the United States. Our environment simply isn’t what it once was, and to use tax dollars to encourage the growth of certain plants just because they’re considered native seems a waste of effort. Once regular trips were made to and from the New World, a new reality was created. Our forestland was reduced in size as it was cleared for the production of crops. Plants came in from the Old World and some became naturalized (which means that they reached a state where they could survive in their newly found home without any human help) before anyone even thought about what that meant. As our industries increased in size so did the amount of carbon dioxide in the air as well as other gases that our energy production creates. This country is not what it was 500, 300, or even 100 years ago, and we need to realize that no amount of restoration is going to change that. Not only are the plants different, the physical properties of the soil, the water, and the air have changed as well. We need to move on and stop spending money and time striving to regain what is gone.
Environmentalists refer to native ecosystems as diverse and successful. But European countries have been introducing plants longer than we have, and England in particular makes a nice case study for what happens when alien plants are continually introduced. England has a functional ecosystem, as do all European countries, even though these countries have introduced many creatures that are considered pests. These countries still have plants and animals, even if they’re not exclusively the native plants and animals that some might prefer to see. Nature tends to find its own balance. During the millions of years prior to the appearance of people on this earth, the existing trees, shrubs, and flowers would move from one locale to another. People certainly speed this movement, but they’re not really doing anything that wouldn’t happen anyway.
It is a shame to restrict beautiful ornamental plants from other countries because of their ability to survive in our new ecology. Butterfly bush, buckthorn, and Norway maple are all considered invasive in various states, and their sale is often restricted. When these plants are lost from our nurseries it bites into their bottom line. In fact, growers in Connecticut estimated that restrictions on sales of so-called invasives cost them twenty million dollars during 2003 and 2004.
By restricting which plants and animals can and can’t be moved across our borders, we are also hurting the bottom line of companies that we should be encouraging. The time that produce spends on a dock or at an airport is money lost, with a minimal probability that we will have stopped something really dangerous. It’s true that if a major pest makes it into the United States that would be a big problem, but for most imported material, we know the major pests we’re concerned about and so do the shipping companies. We could have them check their own stock, and even the shipping materials used to transport the stock. And besides, we can only catch what we’re ready for.
Even if we added a million well-trained inspectors to APHIS, would they be able to catch every problem? The emerald ash borer probably still wouldn’t have been caught because it wasn’t an insect that inspectors were watching for. What it comes down to is this: when we’re aware that something could be a problem if it enters our country, we tend to be ready for it, and we’re able to shut it down before it causes too much damage. If it catches us by surprise, then we might or might not be able to control it, depending on how quickly we identify it as a problem. Controlling foreign diseases and insects that aren’t caught early is both time and labor intensive, and the fiscal tradeoffs should be seriously considered before we attempt such efforts.
Perhaps the biggest problem with trying to control invasive plants, insects, and other organisms is, indeed, the problem of wasted resources. We cannot satisfactorily control all of the invasive species out there. And we might very well end up creating what amounts to a desert because of the herbicide use it would most likely entail, not to mention the huge amounts of money it would cost to hire all of the people needed to apply the herbicides. About the best we can do is to slow the thing down, and it’s worth asking whether slowing things down is worth the effort it would require.
Right-Wing Rating Setting priorities is the key. Invasives that threaten the food supply or the economy must be dealt with aggressively; we don’t have the resources to control everything else.
Left-Wing Rating Allowing invasive species to take over upsets the natural balance of the ecosystem. We need to protect our environment.
The Bottom Line
There is hardly a location in the United States that hasn’t been touched in some way by a plant or animal from somewhere else. Perhaps the best way to look at those places in this country that are relatively undisturbed by invasive species is as vintage cars. There aren’t many of them left, and, for those that have survived, it is worth the extra effort to save them because of the place they hold in our history and our hearts. But, with that in mind, there’s no denying that vintage cars, or undisturbed native forests, just aren’t the most well-adapted components of our highways or land. Newer cars are faster, safer, and use less gas than vintage cars. Similarly, invasives are able to not only survive, but actually flourish in more disturbed environments than many of our natives. We could maintain and even encourage the use of more vintage cars than we currently do. They would look great, but it would be expensive and they still wouldn’t be able to compete with modern cars in most of the parameters that are important to us. Likewise, we can preserve native ecosystems, and even rebuild them to some extent. But without expensive maintenance it will be impossible to keep them completely free of invasives that are equally or even better adapted to the conditions. So you have to ask, is it worth it?
Insects, plants, and other organisms from different parts of the world that can and do alter the native ecosystems of our country are everywhere. Often, we encourage these plants and animals—cows, corn, wheat, dogs, and cats—from other parts of the world, and much of our country has already been irreversibly altered. If you value diverse ecosystems and like to look back at the way things once were, then you should support efforts to stop invasive plants, animals, and insects from coming into our country, and you should also support efforts to suppress plants that are currently spreading and displacing our native plants. On the other hand, if you think we should save money by not trying to control potentially invasive pests, and stick to slowing down the few that could cause real economic harm, you accept that the world has turned into a big blender and all we can really do is sit back and watch it spin.
Ultimately, everyone’s answer to what we should do to control noxious and invasive plants and animals falls somewhere on a long continuum between exorbitant spending with excellent control, and no spending with no control. Neither extreme is workable, so the question is, where in the middle do you stand?
CHAPTER 9
Legal and Illegal Plants:
Why Are the Bad Guys Bad?
GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF the plants grown in this country is sometimes most intense in our own backyards. As we saw in the previous chapter, the government controls certain plants—at least to some extent—to prevent them from taking over a particular ecosystem, such as a lake. But there are other plants that are illegal for us to buy or grow, not because of what they do to our environment, but because of what they can do to us. Over the years many battles have been fought over these plants, with proponents claiming that these plants are being unfairly singled out, while detractors point to the fact that they can be damaging to anyone involved with them. We’re talking, of course, about intoxicating plants, of which the most (in)famous, and most controversial, is marijuana.
In the early 1990s in the state of Washington, Ralph Seeley was a cancer patient who was suffering. He was undergoing aggressive chemotherapy and radiation treatments to combat the cancer, but they weren’t working. To make matters worse, the pain medications prescribed for him did not agree with his system and were addictive. There was only one thing that worked for his pain: marijuana. Smoking this plant relieved the nausea and pain caused by his treatments. Upon hearing this, his doctor prescribed dronabinol, a pill that contains THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. But these pills failed to provide the relief he sought because he would vomit them up before they could take effect. Seeley then acquired marijuana illegally. As a lawyer, he wanted to use it in a legal way, and he wanted others to be able to use it legally, too. So he embarked on a lawsuit against the state of Washington to establish a legal way to acquire marijuana to relieve suffering. Many people had sued to use medical marijuana before, but none had won. Seeley fought hard and wisely and won the right to use this drug in a superior court decision, only to lose in the state supreme court. He died in 1998 without having achieved the right to use marijuana legally, but his efforts helped to pave the way for others to have access to this drug.
To many people, the idea of legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes just makes sense. And others can’t understand why growing this plant is illegal in the first place, since it produces strong fibers that can be used for hemp rope. Many of our founding fathers, including George Washington, grew this crop for just that purpose. Conversely, still others see this plant as a gateway drug that leads its users to try stronger, more dangerous substances. And some view this plant as a terrible evil in and of itself.
As we saw in the previous chapter, both federal and state governments have identified numerous plants that are illegal to carry over the border or across state lines or to sell, for various reasons. Enforcement of laws regulating invasive plants doesn’t come close, however, to the exuberant enforcement of laws regulating other illegal plants, particularly those that are controlled in an apparent attempt to protect us from ourselves. A short list of these plants includes marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms (actually a fungus), peyote, iboga, and the poppies from which opiates are extracted.
The Science
Plants that are banned because of what they do to human beings generally have a long laundry list of effects. From hallucination to intoxication, these plants produce chemicals that make us feel and act differently than we normally would, which is exactly why some people seek them out and others try to prevent their use. For most of these plants, there has been relatively little research into all of the things, good or bad, that using the plants can do to a person.
The highs, lows, and side effects produced by the drugs that come from illegal plants vary greatly, depending on what plant is ingested. Some of these plants, such as iboga, contain chemicals that are relatively toxic (ibogaine and noribogaine). On the other hand, it would take a considerable dose of the THC in marijuana to have an effect beyond making the user stoned. But, as with pesticides, it’s not just how much of them it would take to kill someone, it’s also the other effects that these chemicals could have on users and those around them. Of all of the plants that are illegal because of their intoxicating properties, the mo
st extensively researched is certainly marijuana, which has been shown to cause a number of health problems. Marijuana lowers the birth weights of children born to mothers who smoke it; it may permanently damage the ability of chronic users to perform tasks like reading; and it may impair the ability to drive a car, train, or other vehicle. Chronic users may be permanently damaging their brains. The respiratory stress that smoking marijuana causes is in many ways, similar to, or even worse than, tobacco. And an estimated 40 percent of people arrested tested positive for marijuana in 2004, a statistic that could be interpreted in several ways, including that marijuana impairs judgment, or competence, or both.
Other plants that are banned to protect us from ourselves can make the dangers of marijuana look like a kitten standing next to a tiger. Psilocybin mushrooms can lead to brain damage, kidney failure, and even a heart attack. Ingestion of the plant iboga has the potential to damage the brain, particularly the cerebellum, or it could just kill you.
But marijuana isn’t all bad news. Research has shown that this plant is useful for the treatment of a variety of ailments. It can alleviate nausea (as for Ralph Seeley), stimulate the appetite of AIDS patients, and help in the treatment of glaucoma. Perhaps the most noted benefit of this drug is its ability to help control pain, and at one time, marijuana was the drug of choice for migraine headaches. In a 1997 survey, about 30 percent of oncologists thought that marijuana should be rescheduled (moved to a list of legal drugs), and of those, about one-third thought that they would prescribe marijuana cigarettes once a month or more.