Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Swisher Blunts: the consequences of assembly no longer being required
  1. Alex C Liber1,
  2. Lauren M Dutra1,
  3. Doris G Gammon1,
  4. Caroline J Meek1,
  5. Barrett W Montgomery2
  1. 1Policy and Regulatory Science Program, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2Substance Use Prevention, Evaluation, and Research Program, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alex C Liber; aliber{at}rti.org

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

In October 2024, Swisher Blunts, a line of prerolled cannabis blunts, debuted for sale in dispensaries across the US state of Michigan.1 2 Swisher, the largest non-cigarette US tobacco company,3 produces cigars that are so commonly used to create blunts4 (ie, consumers replace tobacco filler with cannabis) that consumers believe they are designed for this purpose.5 6

The debut of Swisher Blunts is notable because they are the first US cannabis product to be marketed with tobacco branding. Each package resembles Swisher Sweets cigarillos in format and flavouring (figure 1) but prominently claims that they are ‘tobacco free’ (using hemp rather than tobacco leaf wrappers), thereby evading jurisdictional authority by the US Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products. Each package contains 2 1.5 g blunt style cannabis prerolls in a variety of flavours (eg, blueberry pie and Irish cream) and …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • X @AlexCLiber

  • Contributors ACL conceived of the manuscript, collected evidence and wrote the first draft. LD, DGG, CJM and BWM edited the final and revised manuscripts and helped secure funding for the paper.

  • Funding RTI International Internal Funding: Fellows Award

  • Competing interests No, there are no competing interests.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.