Blue smoke and seers: measuring latent demand for cannabis products in a partially criminalized market

  • Patrick L. AndersonEmail author
Original Article


Cannabis, otherwise known as hemp or marijuana, is one of the nation’s fastest growing cash crops. In the late 1990s, proponents of legalization began a successful effort to decriminalize cannabis at the state level. By 2020, over half of the U.S. population will have the ability to purchase legal cannabis in their state of residence. Even in open markets, widely varying state laws and a patchwork of reporting make direct observation of consumer purchases impossible. Governments seeking tax revenue, businesses seeking reliable market indicators, and consumers wanting reliable suppliers all have an interest in filling this knowledge gap. We approach this question from a perspective of fundamental economics and describe a methodology to estimate demand for legal cannabis products across all 50 states. From these estimates, we construct a monthly index of demand for medical and adult-use products and find that the data illustrate (1) continual increases in demand since 2016; (2) significant product substitution, especially for alcoholic beverages; (3) emerging brand differentiation; and (4) the existence of far-reaching regulatory and tax obstacles in many states. We note that these obstacles often cause tax revenue to be substantially smaller (and the black market much larger) than anticipated.


Marijuana Cannabis Legalization Taxes Demand Regulation 



  1. Anderson Economic Group. 2018. Tax note: Revenues from legalizing recreational marijuana under Michigan’s Proposal 18-1. Accessed November 2019.
  2. Anderson, Patrick L. (ed.). 2016. The market for legal cannabis products in the fifty United States. East Lansing, MI: Anderson Economic Group.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, Patrick L. 2015. Valuation, risk, and damages in an emerging legal marijuana products industry in the U.S. Paper presented at conference. National Association of Forensic Economics International Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, May 2015.Google Scholar
  4. Author Unknown. 1854. Our fashionable narcotics. New York Times, 10 January.Google Scholar
  5. Baggio, Michele, Chong, Alberto, and Kwon, Sungoh. 2018. Helping settle the marijuana and alcohol debate: Evidence from scanner data. Working paper found at SSRN, abstract 3063288.Google Scholar
  6. Beverage Information Group. 2012. Beer handbook. Norwalk, CT: Beverage Information Group.Google Scholar
  7. Controlled Substances Act. 1970. U.S. Code. Vol. 21, secs. 812(b)-(c).Google Scholar
  8. Dawsey, Chastity P. 2019. Whitmer to Detroit chamber: ‘There is not enough pot to fill the potholes.’ Bridge Magazine, May 2019.Google Scholar
  9. Federal Bureau of Investigation. n.d. Al Capone. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed November 2019.
  10. Gray, Kathleen. 2018. Estimated tax haul from marijuana sales would grow to $134 million per year. Detroit Free Press, 1 October.Google Scholar
  11. Livengood, Chad. 2018. Cannabis vs. road costs: Tax money unlikely to be panacea for pavement. Crain’s Detroit Business, 2 November.Google Scholar
  12. Ludlow, Fitz H. 1857. The hashish eater. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Literature House/Gregg Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lynch, Timothy. ed. 2000. After prohibition: An adult approach to drug policies in the 21st century. Washington, DC: CATO books. Accessed November 2019.
  14. Manes, Nick. 2019. Whitmer’s attempt to debunk ‘pot for potholes’ taken as a challenge. Michigan Advance, May 2019. Accessed November 2019.
  15. Marihuana Tax Act. 1937. U.S. Code. Stat. 551. Accessed November 2019.
  16. Marijuana Policy Project. 2019. Washington, DC. Accessed November 2019.
  17. Agency, Michigan Senate Fiscal. 2018. November 2018 ballot proposal 18-1: An overview. Lansing, MI: Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency.Google Scholar
  18. O’Shaughnessy, W.B. 1838–1840. On the preparations of the Indian hemp, or gunjah (Cannabis indica): their effets on the animal system in health, and their utility in the treatment of tetanus and other convulsive diseases. Transactions of Medical and Physical Society of Bengal (1838–1840). Calcutta, India.Google Scholar
  19. O’Shaughnessy, William. 1843. New York Journal of Medicine 1 (3): 390–398.Google Scholar
  20. Ozgo, David. 2019. Impact of retail marijuana legalization on alcohol sales in Colorado, Washington State and Oregon. Washington, DC: Distilled Spirits Council.Google Scholar
  21. Pellachia, Thomas. 2018. Alcohol sales dropped 15% in states with medical marijuana laws. Forbes, 22 January. Accessed November 2019.
  22. Nixon, Richard M. 1971. A pragmatic approach to drugs. Press conference. Archived at the Nixon Foundation:, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Staggs, Brooke. 2018. Marijuana generating more in tax revenue, but still less than expected. Orange County Register, 14 November.Google Scholar
  24. Staggs, Brooke. 2019. California made $345 million, not predicted $1 billion, on legal cannabis in 2018. The Mercury News, 19 February. Accessed November 2019.
  25. State of California, California Cannabis Advisory Committee. 2018. Annual report: Global issues. Sacramento, CA: State of California, California Cannabis Advisory Committee.Google Scholar
  26. State of Washington. 2012. Initiative 502. Olympia, WA: State of Washington. Accessed November 2019.
  27. The Tax Foundation. 2012. Federal corporate income tax rates, income years 1909-2012. Washington, DC: The Tax Foundation. Accessed November 2019.
  28. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. 2015. Marijuana. Washington, DC: U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. Accessed November 2019.
  29. U.S. Tax Court. 2007. Californians helping to alleviate medical problems, Inc., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. 128 T.C. No. 14, sec. 280E.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Association for Business Economics 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Anderson Economic GroupEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations