Illicit drug use among arrestees, prices and policy
References (29)
Domestic geographic variation in illicit drug prices
Journal of Urban Economics
(1995)The effects of cocaine and heroin price on drug-related emergency department visits
Journal of Health Economics
(2006)- et al.
An empirical analysis of imprisoning drug offenders
Journal of Public Economics
(2004) - et al.
Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations
Review of Economic Studies
(1991) Econometric Analysis of Panel Data
(2003)- et al.
Prohibition and the market for illegal drugs: An overview of recent history
World Economics
(2001) - Caulkins, J., 1994. Developing price series for cocaine. Manuscript....
- Caulkins, J., 1996. Estimating the elasticities of demand for cocaine and heroin with data from 21 cities from the drug...
Comment: Should the DEA's STRIDE data be used for economic analyses of markets for illegal drugs?
Journal of the American Statistical Association
(2001)- et al.
Analysis of the Drug Use Forecasting Sample of Adult Arrestees: Draft Report to the National Institute of Justice
(1992)
An Empirical Examination of Counterdrug Interdiction Program Effectiveness
Price and enforcement effects on cocaine and marijuana demand
Economic Inquiry
An empirical analysis of alcohol addiction: Results from the monitoring the future panels
Economic Inquiry
Cited by (33)
Disruption to Australian heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and ecstasy markets with the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions
2023, International Journal of Drug PolicyUnbridled spirit: Illicit markets for bourbon whiskey
2021, Journal of Economic Behavior and OrganizationCitation Excerpt :When studying these markets, Bhaskar et al. (2019) place a particular emphasis on trust and moral hazard problems and use seller quality ratings and exit decisions to show that the market works better than one might expect. Aside from Bhaskar et al., empirical work on illicit goods in economics tends to focus on the behavior of drug users (Dave, 2008; Jacobi and Sovinsky, 2016; Galenianos and Gavazza, 2017) or on explaining and quantifying illicit market activity that can be viewed as relating to tax evasion (Smith, 1976; Beard et al., 1997; Prieger and Kulick, 2018). Other authors focus on how illicit goods affect crime and criminal organizations (Levitt and Venkatesh, 2000), social outcomes (Fryer Jr et al., 2013), and how prohibition and enforcement affects economic welfare (Becker et al., 2006).
How does body mass index affect economic growth? A comparative analysis of countries by levels of economic development
2019, Economics and Human BiologyThe spillover effects of health insurance benefit mandates on public insurance coverage: Evidence from veterans
2017, Journal of Health EconomicsCitation Excerpt :Second, we use an alternative DDD model, which includes a within-state control group, to further address the concern in the next section. To examine the possibility that the results are driven by time-variant state level factors other than the parity laws, we follow the strategy in Gruber and Zinman (2001), Dave (2008), and Dave and Mukerjee (2012) to directly control for state level confounding factors. The rationale is, our results would be biased by time-variant state differences if these differences drive the decision of parity enactment and are correlated with health insurance coverage.
Commentary: U.S. mortality, geography, and the anti-social determinants of health
2016, Preventive MedicineThe price elasticity of demand for heroin: Matched longitudinal and experimental evidence
2015, Journal of Health EconomicsCitation Excerpt :Six months is a relatively small fraction of time compared to time spent using heroin: the average first-time admission to treatment for heroin users is approximately 12 years after first use of heroin (SAMHSA, 2011). Moreover, regular heroin users simultaneously account for much of heroin consumption, and are difficult to capture in general population surveys (Dave, 2008, 2006; van Ours and Pudney, 2006; Saffer and Chaloupka, 1999; Caulkins, 1995). We excluded users who reported “dealing drugs” as one of their top 3 sources of income, since we would expect dealers to have a potentially different response to changes in price, as they are not (exclusively) final consumers.