Thread: Does Marlboro have Marijuana Factories?

I heard many years ago that Phillip Morris/Marlboro already had factories set up to process marijuana and they're just waiting for it to become legal.

Do you think this is truth or just urban legend? If it's for real, where are these factories?

It seems like a likely scenario to me, they would just have to modify a tobacco plant to mechanically deseed and sift the weed, and they would definitely make a lot of money from it. Hopefully they don't add dangerous addictive chemicals to the weed!

I believe they have all of the brand names for strains and whatever they put on the packaging copyrighted so when it does go into production they wont have to wait, I've heard some company has built dispensers for packs of joints with all the names like blueberry, etc on them too. I doubt they can legally have factories though

When I lived in North Carolina (circa '81) the tobacco growers were the best weed growers in the state.

They would actually grow the tobacco on the perimeter and the MJ in the interior. Killer sinsemilla with much more bang per square foot.

These guys sold their tobacco to the major tobacco companies even though they were independents.

If MJ is ever legalized then these guys would be the logical choice for regulated growing and the tobacco companies will be their mouth pieces.

"Big tobacco" would not have to make any major adjustments to switch to growing & distributing MJ.

You people are cool. Don't you know the tobacco industries rule the senate? If their agenda was to legalize it, it would already be done.

yea graph is prolly right but I still dont see how cannabis would affect the tobacco industry. People will still smoke cigs and likely buy joints from the same company that makes their cigs...but hey americas all about greed right?

IF it is the case, they shud change their menthols to white packing, so that when legalised you could go ask for a pack of "20 marlboro Greens please" hehe, that'd be cool,
although frankly I wouldn't trust any tobacco company to grow my weed.

Why wouldnt they just wait until it was legalized, then build the factories?

So they can be the first company.

IF they are ready before the other companies then only marlboro weed would be available at first, so everyone would buy it..

Once they get people onto their brand, their hope is that they would stay smokin the marlboro shite.

I want legalisation to be able to grow my own, not buy it.

If thats true than marajuana will be legalized before we know it,hopefully.

I've been saying every year for the last 5 years that it will be legalized this year and it still hasnt happened man. Theres just to many right wing rednecks in america that believe that weed is just as bad as oxys, coke, etc.... Its actually sad because i've seen alcoholics switch from booze to dope and it turned there lives around.

I read some testimony given by the head of the department at University of Mississippi that has the only legal contract to grow weed for the government. He said the weed is then made into cigarettes in N.C. but the buds gum up the rolling machines so they generally use just the leaves to roll the cigarettes, which sort of screws up the validity of all their studies or anything connected to government weed.

Wait what ciggs are these, cause I want some!

Originally Posted by graph

You people are cool. Don't you know the tobacco industries rule the senate? If their agenda was to legalize it, it would already be done.

Exactly what I was going to say when I opened this thread

Logically, we can infer the story is probably a false rumor. It makes no business sense to invest in equipment, factories, and flounder the consequent employee wages in setting up the equipment and factories if marijuana is no closer to legalization (on the federal level) than it was when it was banned. I find the argument of "so they can be the first company" to be fallacious because since Marlboro is such a large corporation they could afford to invest and set-up the equipment within a relative heartbeat of legalization, perhaps within months of being signed into law. For any small companies to beat them to the proverbial punch would be trivial, Goliath beats David.

Originally Posted by FLORIDA MON

They would actually grow the tobacco on the perimeter and the MJ in the interior.

That is my all time favorite mary jane myth

I'm not saying tobacco growers don't also grow dope, just NOT in the same paddock LOL. It's just so impractical.

I lived and worked on tobacco farms in this area during the mid 1980's. Harvesting tobacco

I suppose if you got the picking crew to work naked and scraped the resin off them at day's end, you could make some wicked nicotine laced charas.

Tobacco drying and curing is done on the farm, can't see that cannas would handled differently. So not really a problem for the same factories to process, apart from the risk of contamination of regular ciggies with traces of cannabis.

I would not use any marijuana that was grown by a tobacco company unless it was verified that they did not use radioactive polonium in their soil, which is how most of them grow tobacco cheaply.

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

I would not use any marijuana that was grown by a tobacco company unless it was verified that they did not use radioactive polonium in their soil, which is how most of them grow tobacco cheaply.

Well they don't actually go and add polonium to the soil intentionally, any crop grown with a fertilizer derived from calcium phosphate ore is susceptible to polonium contamination.

well even if these tobbacco co.s had facilities set up, and it became legal tomorrow, i still wouldnt buy from them. unless if they had a certified organic brand.

Originally Posted by sarah louise

Well they don't actually go and add polonium to the soil intentionally, any crop grown with a fertilizer derived from calcium phosphate ore is susceptible to polonium contamination.

Thanks. I looked it up and found that there is little to support the theory that polonium causes cancer in many tobacco smokers.

Don't you think that there may be something to it, though, since lung cancer became a problem for smokers after those fertilizers were introduced to the tobacco fields? People smoked for hundreds of years before that, and you don't hear much about lung cancer in those times.

Here's some info, but I can't verify their scientific accuracy, and neither can they in most cases:

Lung cancer rates increased significantly during most of the 1900's (6). Although it has been conclusively proven that tobacco causes lung cancer, researchers have not established that the carcinogens in tobacco are present in high enough levels to explain the numbers of cancer cases. Its no coincidence that between 1938 and 1960, the level of polonium 210 in American tobacco tripled commensurate with the increased use of chemical fertilizers and Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) accumulation.

About the only problem with Mr. Malmo-Levine's article is that the rise of the use of Calcium Phosphate Fertilizer among Mexican, South American and Hawaiian Marijuana growers is starting to cause a rise in Lung Cancer among Marijuana users that correlates with the statistical increase of CPF's use. But he makes an interesting point, because prior to the increased use of CPF by "pot growers", Lung Cancer from it's use was almost non-existent. This 'non-scientific' observation does make a serious point about Polonium's contribution
Radioactive Polonium in Tobacco

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Thanks. I looked it up and found that there is little to support the theory that polonium causes cancer in many tobacco smokers.

Don't you think that there may be something to it, though, since lung cancer became a problem for smokers after those fertilizers were introduced to the tobacco fields? People smoked for hundreds of years before that, and you don't hear much about lung cancer in those times.

Here's some info, but I can't verify their scientific accuracy, and neither can they in most cases:

before 1900 medicine was more of a guessing game then anything. they didnt know what caused alot of these things. despite the fact that there is more "doccumented" cases of cancer doesnt mean that people have only started getting cancer from smoking, or anything else for the matter, since the early part of the centry. for all we know there could be as many cases of cancer deaths before 1900 as there is today. also you have to look at the population explosion that has happened since 1900. oc course there is going to be more cases of cancer a year with mroe people. its already been proven and establishd that cancer is mainly a genetic thing. some people can smoke for their whole life and not have problems with it. while there may be evidence that supports that ciggerettes cause cancer, there also is alot of other things that cause it also. take a look there is radioactive minerals in the soil all around us. it happens naturally.

Originally Posted by miley

I've been saying every year for the last 5 years that it will be legalized this year and it still hasnt happened man. Theres just to many right wing rednecks in america that believe that weed is just as bad as oxys, coke, etc.... Its actually sad because i've seen alcoholics switch from booze to dope and it turned there lives around.

Republicans have nothing to do with it, that is just what the man behind the curtain wants you to believe. The reality is that the health industry has been fighting against marijuana legalization for years, proof of this can be found in a drug called Marinol, a synthetic version of THC. Marinol can still give you a high like marijuana, however Marinol is legal, Marijuana is not. I don't think there is any better evidence than the existence of Marinol to prove that the health industry is against anything they can't profit off of.

This is why I get pissed off when people actually think Hillary Clinton is going to want to improve this countries healthcare, it only shows how naive people are. She has received more money from the health industry than any other candidate, she is essentially another puppet of the health care industry. She's said herself marijuana needs more tests before going legal, despite that it already has had more tests than the typical drug created by these pharmaceutical companies.

Ahh, goin on a rant lol :P

Back on topic....I've heard about Marlboro Blacks, supposedly being from Australia and that is their version of weed....however, this was a story I heard when I was a kid, and I don't even think weed is legal in Australia. But even if Marlboro sold marijuana, I wouldn't trust them to buy it from them. Probably would have a ton of added ingredients to make it more addictive, fuck that!

Originally Posted by Nailhead

Back on topic....I've heard about Marlboro Blacks, supposedly being from Australia and that is their version of weed....

where are they being sold?

No it's not true, cannabis is not legal in Aus. No criminal sanctions exist for the possession of small amounts in some parts of the country. Although civil sanctions can still be imposed even in the most liberal states. It's a bit of a lottery.

The key issue here is the Build-Up of radioactive materials.

Repeated year-in year-out growth in the same soil causes a build-up of Phosphate fertilizers (which have Polonium in them) which is then aborbed by the Tobacco plant.

So it will (and has) take years for the build up to occur and its effects to become noticeable.

The kicker is that the tobacco companies have known this for years. Life is cheap and there will always be "replacement smokers" available in the 3rd World

Actually, way to lazy atm but look up some patents made by Marb, there are some cig names that seem directly linked to the intended future use of marijuana cigarettes

Originally Posted by graph

You people are cool. Don't you know the tobacco industries rule the senate? If their agenda was to legalize it, it would already be done.

No, that's not true. It's not like the tobacco industry is the only lobbying power in this country. The pharmaceutical industry is big in it too, and I have my doubts that they want cannabis legalized. In fact, I know that they don't. The tobacco industry... they might want to. I guess it seems like something they'd do, other than the fact that tobacco is physically addictive, and cannabis isn't. I think that the tobacco industry would ruin cannabis' name even further if it was legalized, and they did this. Most cigarette tobacco is low quality tobacco, so I can only imagine that if weed was legalized and they started to make joints, that it would be filled with shitty weed. LOL