You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Co-marketing of marijuana and cigars in US convenience stores
  1. Cristine Delnevo1,
  2. Daniel P Giovenco2,
  3. Marin K Kurti1,
  4. Abdulrahman Al-Shujairi1
  1. 1 Center for Tobacco Studies, School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
  2. 2 Sociomedical Sciences, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Cristine Delnevo, Center for Tobacco Studies, School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA; delnevo{at}sph.rutgers.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054651

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.

    Cigars are among the most heavily flavoured of all tobacco products.1 Flavoured cigars, particularly cigarillos, appeal to young people and are also associated with blunt use.2–4 Of note, young adults cite brands and flavours as important factors influencing the selection of cigars used for blunts.4 With the growing social acceptance of recreational marijuana use, tobacco control researchers have noted in the past year the explicit co-marketing of cigars and marijuana.5 6 This nascent research was limited as it focused on one brand, Splitarillos5 or a subset of 10 marijuana-related flavours available at the point-of-sale in California.6 We add to the literature on marijuana–cigar co-marketing by analysing Nielsen’s convenience store (C-Track) retail scanner data.

    Nielsen’s C-Track is representative of all convenience store types and includes chain stores, non-chain and independent convenience stores, as well as gas stations. Cigar …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors CDD conceptualised the research letter, interpreted the data and oversaw the writing. MK and DPG contributed to data interpretation and writing. AA coded the data and contributed to the analysis and its interpretation.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

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