Does Marlboro have Marijuana Factories?

[qdavid]

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.

qdavid Reviewed by qdavid on 09-10-2007. 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 Rating: 5

[Blitzed]

Wait what ciggs are these, cause I want some!

[sd6515]

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

[Oh My High]

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.

[sarah louise]

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. :hippy:

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.

[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.

[sarah louise]

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. :hippy:

[Frickr]

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.

[Breukelen advocaat]

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. :hippy:

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

[Frickr]

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. :twocents: