Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter June 1, 2017

Does Previous Marijuana Use Increase the Use of Other Drugs: An Almost Ideal Demand System Approach

Alexi Thompson and Yamaura Koichi


From a policy standpoint, the legalization of marijuana may affect other drug markets. The Almost Ideal Demand Model is used to estimate drug substitution between the most common illegal street drugs in the US including cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamines. We control for past marijuana consumption. Results indicate that past marijuana consumption does not contribute to increased current consumption of other drugs. Further, marijuana is a weak complement to methamphetamines but marijuana price changes do not affect heroin or cocaine consumption.


Aepli, M. 2014. “Consumer Demand for Alcoholic Beverages in Switzerland: A Two-Stage Quadratic Almost Ideal Demand System for Low, Moderate, and Heavy Drinking Households.” Agricultural and Food Economics 2 (15):. Search in Google Scholar

Cunningham, S., and K. Finlay. Identifying Demand Responses to Illegal Drug Supply Interdictions. 2015 Health Economics (Accepted for publication) Search in Google Scholar

Deaton, A., and J. Muellbauer. 1980. “An Almost Ideal Demand System.” The American Economic Review 70: 312–326. Search in Google Scholar

DiNardo, J. 1993. “Law Enforcement, the Price of Cocaine, and Cocaine Use.” Mathematical and Computer Modeling 17 (2): 53–64. Search in Google Scholar

DiNardo, J., and T. Lemieux. (1992). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research Alcohol, Marijuana, and American Youth: The Unintended Effects of Government RegulationNBER Working Paper no. 4212. Search in Google Scholar

Dobkin, C., and N. Nicosia. 2009. “The War on Drugs: Methamphetamine, Public Health, and Crime.” American Economic Review 99 (1): 324–349. Search in Google Scholar

Eales, J. S., and L. J. Unnevehr. 1988. “Demand for Beef and Chicken Products: Separability and Structural Change.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70 (3): 521–532. Search in Google Scholar

Fanelli, L., and M. Mazzocchi. (2004).Back to the Future? Habits and Forward-Looking Behaviour for UK Alcohol and Tobacco DemandMIMEO, Università degli Studi di Bologna. Search in Google Scholar

Fergusson, D. M., J. M. Boden, and L. J. Horwood. 2006. “Cannabis Use and Other Illicit Drug Use: Testing the Cannabis Gateway Hypothesis.” Addiction 101 (4): 556–569. Search in Google Scholar

Fries, A., R. Anthony, A. Cseko, C. Gaither, and E. Schulman. (2008).The Price and Purity of IIIicit Drugs: 1981–2007Institute for Defense Analysis. Search in Google Scholar

Horowitz, J. 2001. “Should the DEA’s STRIDE Data Be Used for Economic Analyses of Markets for Illegal Drugs?” Journal of the American Statistical Association 96: 1254–1271. Search in Google Scholar

Hunt-McCool, J., B. F. Kiker, and Y. Ng. 1994. “Estimates of the Demand for Medical Care under Different Functional Forms.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 9: 201–218. Search in Google Scholar

Jofre-Bonet, M., and N. M. Petrey. 2008. “Trading Apples for Oranges? Results of an Experiment on the Effects of Heroin and Cocaine Price Changes on Addicts’ Polydrug Use.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 66 (2): 281–311. Search in Google Scholar

Johnston, L., P. O’Malley, and J. Bachman. 1981. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth 1975–1980. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Search in Google Scholar

Kandel, D., and K. Yamaguchi. 1993. “From Beer to Crack: Developmental Patterns of Drug Involvement.” American Journal of Public Health 83: 851–855. Search in Google Scholar

Kandel, D. B., K. Yamaguchi, and L. C. Klein. 2006. “Testing the Gateway Hypothesis.” Addiction 101 (4): 470–472. Search in Google Scholar

Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2016, Search in Google Scholar

Pacula, R. (1994).Can increasing the beer tax reduce marijuana consumption?Department of Economics, Duke University. Unpublished. Search in Google Scholar

Pacula, R., J. Chriqui, and J. King. (2003).Decriminalization in the United States: What Does It Mean? NBER Working Paper, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research 9690. Search in Google Scholar

Pacula, R., and R. Lundberg. 2014. “Why Changes in Price Matter When Thinking about Marijuana Policy: A Review of the Literature on the Elasticity of Demand.” Public Health Reviews 35 (2): 1–18. Search in Google Scholar

Pudney, S. 2003. “The Road to Ruin? Sequences of Initiation to Drugs and Crime in Britain.” The Economic Journal 113 (486):. C182–C198. Search in Google Scholar

Reuter, P., and J. Caulkins. (2004). 141–165 Illegal ‘Lemons’: Price Dispersion in Cocaine and Heroin MarketsUNODC, Bulletin on Narcotics. In Illicit Drug Markets, Vols. LVI, 1 and 2. Search in Google Scholar

Saffer, H., and F. Chaloupka. 1995. “The Demand for Illicit Drugs.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No 5238. Search in Google Scholar

Stone, J. 1953. The Measurement of Consumer’s Expenditure and Behavior in the United Kingdom, 1920–1938. Vol. 1. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Taljaard, P. R., Z. G. Alemu, and H. D. Van Schalkwyk. 2004. “The Demand for Meat in South Africa: An Almost Ideal Estimation.” Agrekon 43 (4): 430–443. Search in Google Scholar

Thies, C., and C. Register. 1993. “Decriminalization of Marijuana and the Demand for Alcohol, Marijuana and Cocaine.” Social Science Journal 30 (4): 385–399. Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, A. 2013. “An Almost Ideal Supply Estimate of US Energy Substitution.” Energy Economics 40: 813–818. Search in Google Scholar

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2016 March 1, 2016. Search in Google Scholar

United States Drug Enforcement Agency. 2016 March 15, 2016. Search in Google Scholar

Van Ours, J. C., and J. Williams. 2007. “Cannabis Prices and Dynamics of Cannabis Use.” Journal of Health Economics 26: 578–596. Search in Google Scholar

Zellner, A. 1962. “An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests for Aggregation Bias.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 57: 348–368. Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-6-1

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston