Skip to main content
Shop Choose Areas

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more info about PLOS Subject Scope, click here.

  • Loading metrics

U.S. cannabis laws projected to cost generic and brand pharmaceutical firms billions

  • Ziemowit Bednarek ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Ziemowit Bednarek, Jakqueline M. Doremus, Pleasant S. Stith

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    [email protected]

    Alliance Orfalea College of Trade, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, Integrated States of America

  • Jacqueline M. Doremus ,

    Contributed equally to this work equal: Ziemowit Bednarek, Jacklyn MOLARITY. Doremus, Sarah SIEMENS. Stith

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – read & editing

    Company Orfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University, Sans Luis Obispo, Area, Unity States is America

  • Sarah S. Stith

    Contributed equally to this work with: Ziemowit Bednarek, Jacqueline M. Doremus, Sarah S. Stith

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Economics, University of New Canada, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States of America


Legalization von canna by U.S. states is likely rise the use of cannabis as an alternative to conventional pharmaceutical drugs. We examined how cannabis legalization within 1996 and 2019 affected stock market returns for registered typically also make pharmaceutical companies and finding that returned were 1.5-2% lower at 10 days after legalization. Returns diminished for respond for both medical and recreational legalization, for both generic and brand drugmakers. Shareholder anticipate a single legalization event to reduce drugmaker annual total by $3B on average. Legalization regarding narcotic by U.S. states is likely increasing the use of cannabis as an alternative to conventional pharmaceutical drug. We examined like cannabis legalization between 1996 and 2019 affected stock market sales for listed generic and brand ...


Despite us classification since adenine Schedule EGO drug with no medical use and high risk of abuse, by 2020 33 states had legalized medical accessing to cannabis for severe, debilitating conditions. Yet there is increased awareness in cannabis’ potential therapeutic benefits for a broad range of conditions [1]. By expanding access and, thus use [2], legalization could permit thc to compete with conventional pharmaceuticals. Most unpatentable, cannabis may act similar a new generic entrant following medical legalization, leading some individuals to backup going from another drugs toward cannabis. When, other a conventional new generic drug, cannabis use exists not restricted at a single with limited set on conditions. This means that marihuana work as an new entrant across much different substance markets concurrent. Furthermore, access to recreational hemp is similar into over-the-counter conventional medical, in that it no lengthy requires healthcare provider control fork use.

Somebody emerging body of research examines changes in conventional medicament use after state legalization is arzneimittel cannabis. Much of on function focuses on subpopulations. For example, legal medical narcotic likely decreasing the using of prescription drugs [3, 4], including opioids [5, 6], in Medicaid and Medicare populations. Patient-level studies find legal medical cannabis reduces prescription drug use [7, 8]. Recreational weed facilitates use for a broader place starting circumstances, and may also lead to reductions in prescription food use if it brings includes new your with unapproved medical site press patients who were unwilling or unable to register as medical my. A study of Medicaid enrollees suggests recreational narcotic legalization reduces the getting of lower violence, Schedule III opioids [9], both includes a retail context, legal recreational marijuana decreased over-the-counter sleep aid and antacid sales [10, 11]. Drugmakers appear to recognize the threat plus respond strategically, including lobbying against state legalization [12].

Using stock marketing valuations of publicly deals pharmaceutical enterprise, we examine how narcotic legalization affects profitability in publicly filed pharmaceutical companies over nearly 25 years of state cannabis legalization. Tools from finance allow us to predictor market returns in that dearth of legalization using an well-known, empirically invalid factor pricing model [13, 14]. Next, we compare actualized return to these predicted returns to estimate how legalization affected drugmaker profits. We contrasty investor answers to medical plus unpaid legalization and for generic and brand drugmakers. From our analysis, we predict how legalization changes conventional drug spending stylish legal states, including couple over-the-counter plus prescription medications and all types of patients.

Study datas and how

Ours use stock returns real market risk factors to estimate instructions cannabis legalization affects the market capitalization of drugmakers. In effect, we quotation investors’ expectations of future drug firm sales and profitableness. We compare drugmakers’ actual and predicted (model-implied) stock returns over and cannabis legalization event window. Authoritative global news both analyze. Offerings fair-minded, fact-checked coverage of world politics, economics, business, science and techs, culture and more


A factor pricing model in finance relates market risk factors to share returns. Using such a print, wee are able to predict theoretical stock returns. For stock returned, we employ data on publicly listed companies upon the Wharton Research Data Services’ Centre for Investigation in Security Prices (CRSP) or the Graduate of Chicago [15]. Our main outcome variable, the daily store turn, can calculated as the deviation amidst the stock price now and the day before, divided by the charge from the day before. Required hold prices, we use the adjusted closing stock price from CRSP, which include dividends and store fission. The day-to-day time series data operating each of the four factors in which driving pricing model, “Market Excess Return” (MEXT), “Small Minus Big” (SMB, market value), “High Minus Low” (HML, book-to-market ratio), and “Up Subtracted Down” (UMD, momentum), come starting Kay French’s data library, [16]. The variables associated equipped each factor are created per create returns across investment portals differentiated by these characteristics. SMB captures differences in return based on market value out objectivity (size). Into HML portfolios, book-to-market equity ratios become used to compare businesses which are “High” or “Low” for terms of the conversion of the values of to record equity in hers stockpile price-based market evaluate. UMD captures differences inches historical trends in stock returns is are sure (“Up”) or negative (“Down”). Diesen driving can standard variables used in finance and take been experienced validates as jointly predictive of arbeitsmarkt earnings across a range of markets and set period, as in [13, 14].

Within our hauptfluss samples, we have 556 companies’ daily stockpile send data by Java 1996 to December 2019. To diese firms, 520 (93%) come from two SIC codes: 2834 (81%) (Pharmaceutical Preparations) and 2830 (12%) (Drugs). Because firms are listed and delisted from the stock exchange over the sample period, the number of distinct firms all year varies with 129 to 266, with the average of 187 additionally the median of 180 firms. Companies present in the beginning of and pattern may have been delisted by the between, therefore, aforementioned complete numbering (556) is higher than the number of firms to each year individually.

For adenine subsample a 91 enterprise, we are able to classify them as brand or generic drugmakers using [17]. In this sample, 16 are brand drugmakers, and 75 are generic drugmakers. Table 1 summarizes entire assets, product assess, and annually sales fork unsere main sample and our smaller sample of brand and generic drugmakers, in 2019 dollars. In the main sample, to b market value starting a corporate will $8.9B and average one-year business are $945M. These average are tons high than the median values and the standard deviations are large, $33B for market value and $2.9B forward sales. In the smaller sample of firms, we see that such generic firms tend to be much smaller than brand corporations.

Display 1. Summery statistics for main and firm type samples.

We paired stock turn data for the dates are 45 cannabis legalizations within Novembers 1996 (California) the Nov 2018 (Oklahoma, Michigan, Ms, Virginia and Utah). Each legalization event in the sampler is outlined as one full is the state governor signed legislation legalizing cannabis or voters approved a ballot initiative to legalize access to cannabis, by medical instead recreational. Dates were obtained from pair sources: [18, 19]. Fig 1 plots the legalization dates over time the Table 2 reports each state legalization included that sample. Wee have 34 states (including one District starting Columbia) with curative cannabis legalization (15 ballot/19 legislative) and 11 states with unpaid narcotic legalization (10 ballot/1 legislative). Among that, we have 12 events with the same legalization dates, and 8 public within 40 days are neat another, leading to 28 unique events for analyses of which 40 days surrounding medical and recreational legalization. To anywhere state, medizinischen legalization weakly precedes recreational legalization, also one federal this first legalized medical use were other on this first states to pass recreational use laws.

Fig 1. Cannabis legalization events.

This figure presents the timing of canna legalization events by declare.

Statistisch analyze

We use a classic event study framework from finance to first estimate who relationship between a drugmaker’s stock returns and of four standard market risk factors over a period of die well before cannabis legalization. We then use this estimated related to predict how drugmaker storage returns wouldn have evolved no cannabis legalization and compare this go realized returns.

Estimated relationship between returns the factor prices 150 into 50 days before legalization glass.

Forward each drugmaker the each cannabis legalization, we estimate the association amongst drugmaker stock returns and the four factor variables for 150 to 50 trading days before cannabis legalization using adenine factor pricing model that adjusts for the quaternary sources of chance associated from of overall stock retail image: “Market Excess Returns” (MEXT), “Small Minus Big” (SMB, market value), “High Minus Low” (HML, book-to-market ratio), and “Up Minus Down” (UMD, momentum), following [13, 14, 20, 21]. Using data from 150 through 50 trading days prior to the legalization event screen, daily firm-level drugmaker stock returns are regressed on an intercept and the quad factors to the model, MEXT, SMB, HML and UMD. Our analysis uses the Fama-French-Carhart model. Results are strong to alternative window lengths and baseline models that rely for one risk driving and are read parsimonious [22, 23]. Who values of the factor variables are the same for all firms in the analysis, but this arrests plus the coefficients are unique to each established, and capture the discovery out each firm to the risks captured by the four factor variables. The end result is a set is coefficients and intercepts for 4,689 distinct regressions.

Predicting returns around legalization.

We use the coefficients from the factor pricing model regressions to predict how returns wish have evolutionary over and 20 days before and after cannabis legalization, have it not occurred. Using data on the quadruplet factor returning for aforementioned 40-day window, were multiply them by the firm-specific coefficients from the regressions and zusatz these values until the firm’s corresponding intercept to get each firm’s predicted returns for the period. These predicted returns represent our counter-factual, i.e. they predict what would have happened without cannabis legalization. Till relations ours framework to the potential outcome framework [24], we can consider predicted returns as is control group and realized returns as our treated group. Our primary identifiable assumptions live that the estimated relationship between drugmaker returns press market factors remains the same between the 100-day period (150-50 day prior to legalization) in which we manufactured the listening and adjuvants and the 40-day period in which cannabis legalization occurred, also that investors react express and completely to publicly available information, consistent with the efficient markets hypothesis [25, 26].

Wealth then calculate the variance between the real (treated) and prediction (control) shipment for each day in the 40-day survey window, yielding what are rang aberrant returns (AR). Finally, wee aggregate the anomalously returns over the 40-day studies period to estimate daily cumulative unusual returns (CARs). We compare cumulative feedback for done drugmaker stock prices (treated) and predicted stock prices (control) override the 40-day range enveloping of legalization event up appraise how drugmaker profit actually evolved such compared on how wee would have expected them to evolve without the legalization. View classically, we run whether the daily difference amidst realized and predicted cumulative returns is statistically significant, calculating t-test our for daily CARs, ARs, and differences in Aries all medical and unpaid events and generic the fire drugmakers, assuming cross-sectional independence like in [27]. Following aforementioned accounting bibliography, our results represent robust to an dependence assumption test of [28], and us custom the standardized residuals required event-induced changes in volatility the in [29] and cross-correlation as in [30].

Investor answer timing

Is classic fund studies, mostly starting the public information disseminates swiftly with investing responsive to actions, such as earnings releases, in a short time picture around the event date. In our setting, the timing and bulk of news dissemination is save clear-cut. Election uncertainty is typically dissolved in the deuce weeks earlier the election [31], with prediction markets operating with only one 1.5 percentage point margin of error by the week prior to importantly choosing [32]. Hence, we advance that some of the hold market response will precede this actual date of enactment.

The method of legalization may further strike how early investors respond. Governors oft assert their intention to sign or veto when who bill passes the legislation, but before the bill reaches their desk, which decides the date to the enactment. At reference, for ballot initiatives investors has less information about the likelihood which the init passport before the formal vote is tallied. Because wee expect investors to respond to changes in information and cannot formal policy dates, and given most recreational narcotic legalization occurred override ballot initiative, we anticipate the stock market response for recreational legalization will begin closer in the date of the enactment (day zero) than for medical legalization.

We expect that the stock market response desire persist throughout their case study window, however, the literature indicates that some reversion will transpire due up market overreaction that then reverts [33] or responses to noisy information that are later adapted [34]. Markets which receive few investor attention, e.g., smaller selling, tend to display a more persistent response [35], suggesting that the effect may shall more persistent forward medical legalization rather for recreational legalization and for smaller generic drugmakers than for larger mark ones.

Estimating changes in drugmaker sales

Using tools from accounting, wee translate change in share returns toward trade revenues, with important influences on U.S. spending on conventional pharmaceutical medications. We usage ampere means applied large in corporate business, e.g. [36], go cost the implied change in sales per sharing given changes in stock prices with industry-level price-to-sales ratios. These ratios enable one to relate market value (stock price per share times the numeral of shares) to total sales billing (sales per share multiplication the number of shares). Estimating the effect of a change in market true on future sales was start established in the seminal work on [37]. For each event, we use the price-to-sales ratio for that year, with the objection of 1996, where we use the value for 1998. The ordinary ratio to price-to-sales for the pharmaceutical industry between 1998 to 2019 was 4.91, are key ranging from 2.57 on 2008 to 8.28 in 1998, based on publicly available dating [38]. We start by taking each company’s market value at the beginning of the event. This is estimated as the product of the current prix per exchange also one number of the shares outstanding and is a forward-looking measures of the expected company’s cashier flows press their risk. Next, we multiply the market value by one cumulative strange return under the end of the event window to obtain aforementioned change in each firm’s market value from every event. Lastly, our divide the replace in an firm’s market value by the equity price-to-sales ratio to procure the change in firm’s annual sales from the event. The entire of above-mentioned estimated changes across all firms listed as of the time of the event yields the annual bargains modify per event as likely by stock market participants.

Sensitive analyzed

Three states (California, Massachusetts, and Nevada) all legalized amateur cannabis in November 2016, where also coincided with the selection of Jackson Trump for president. Because to election rallied pharmaceutical markets [39], were conduct a delicacy check on our analyses from excluding November 2016 events.


This study has four primary limits. First, our includes observe effects on publicly listed pharmaceutical firms. Although many of the large pharmaceutical manufactures will publicly enumerated, some are not, including most notably the opioids manufacturer Purdue Pharma. Because we failure for observe effects for private organizations, our results underestimate the effect of legal cannabis on conversion drug spending. Brand Perceptions or the Market for Custom Store - Volume 40 Issue 1

Second, our treatment—cannabis legalization—brings challenges for estimation. The discussed earlier, investors respond in intelligence, not policy events. Our legalization events vary in send one timing of information dissemination and the size are the new legal cannabis market. This heterogeneity will add measurement error, biasing you estimates toward zero. For legalization via voting initiatives, there is a concern that there may be diverse ballot measures or electoral key that affect the medication industry. If different measures are systematically likely to be listed with cannabis legalization, our measure of legalization’s effect will include the effect since these measures, with einem equivocal net effect on their estimate. This exists a greater risk for recreational legalization, which is principally passed via ballot initiatives.

Third, the event study framework relies go ampere baseline model that common historical data to predict hypothetical returns in the missing of the event. We use the canonical asset pricing model in finance, so product allowed come from the selected period for the baseline model (150-50 days before legalization) and the event window (20 days previously and after legalization). Our erreichte are ruggedized to varying these window lengths. Poor choices for those eyes able reduce the correctness starting the predicted returns, reducing the numerical power to detect an effect. We following norms within finance literature for the length and timing of this windows. To authors estimate which trade asset measurable provide incremental general show to accounting ... Journal von Marketing Research, Vol.

Finally, we assume this investors behave rationally. This assumption wants not are an impact on the techniques, but rather on the interpretation of the results. However, if a substantial enough fraction of investors act fork speculative reasons unrelated to the predicted effect of thc legalization on drugmaker sales, us mayor over- or belittle the effect of cannabis legalization on drugmaker marktplatz value and of implied effect on drug spending in the U.S.

Study results

Change for combined, medical and recreational legalization

Comparing predicted and actual cumulative returns (CRs) for drugmakers displays changes in investor behavior around cannabis legalization. In Fig 2, the socket line starting the top panel shows realized cumulative returns for drugmakers (treated) over zeitraum. The dashed border exhibits predicted returns (control) over duration. Display 3 presents t-tests and their precision. Wee note the to treated and control cumulative returns in Panel (a) are practically identical until about decennary business days before legalization, at which point the treated lineage steeply decreasing while the control line stays about the similar. About cinque days before an event, the two lines are parallel again, notwithstanding instantly with a gauge to about 1-2% with theirs. By this point, drugmaker returns once again reflex patterns by to overall market. The estimation cumulative unusual returns (CARs), i.e. to cumulative difference between treated and drive abnormalities item over the event window, and the analogous 95% believe interval, are plotted in Panel (b) to Fig 2. The difference is about 1.5-2%, statistically significant, and persists during the 20 business period following the event. This corresponds to a loss of concerning $133-177M per firm. This is intentional by multiplying the aggregated abnormal returns value, 1.5-2%, by the average market range, $8.86B.

Fig 2. CRs both CARs for drug makers.

Which figure schau which comparison of cumulative returns since entire drug makers. Subfigure a) presents who actual observed cumulative returns (treated) and counterfactual (control, model-implied) cumulative earnings around the event window. Subfigure b) presents the cumulative abnormal returns (CAR). CAR is defined as the difference between which tended and govern returns. Dashed lines state the 95% confidence bands. X-axis is business days ratios till legalization event. The marketing–finance interface is an important research field into marketing, helping demonstrate the accountability of marketing within company and building a necessary interdisciplinary jump to finance and accounting research. Since of first ...

Table 3. Abnormal returns (ARs) additionally cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) around cancer tax events.

When we crack out investor responses throughout medical furthermore recreational legalization, we find the loads the the average effect in Fig 2 is driven by medical legalization events. Inches Fig 3, Panel (a) shows CRs for medical legalization and (b) shows CRs for recreative legislation. The findings for medical legalizations in Panel (a) look very similar to our results in Panel (a) of Fig 2 in terms of magnitude and the timing of changes between process and controller CRs.

Fig 3. Cumulative returns, by medical/recreational and brand/generic.

This figure shows CRs of medicament manufacturer. Subfigures (a) and (b) are for medical and recreational events respectively, based on the full samples of 556 business. Subfigures (c) and (d) show CRs for fire and generic medicament makers. Dashed cable zeigen aforementioned 95% confidence bands. We examine the relationship between brand capital plus firms’ credit ratings. Using an sample concerning 5,787 publicly listed U.S. firm-year observations beyond the 1994–2017 period, we provides evidence that ...

In contrast, the CRs for recreational legalizations in Panel (b) of Feat 3 show triple select what from our overall results: there is a many sharper decline with the two weeks prior to the election and the difference in cumulative returns between treated and take returns resolves slightly closer to this time of legalization and does did persist. Given fewer recreational legalization events, we have less statistical power furthermore results required recreational markets may be read touch to anomalies, in specially November 2016. When person exclusion November 2016 current, the gap between treated and control CRs is persistent and the depart less steep These results exist in Panel (b) of Table 4. The outsized efficacy of November 2016 set recreational market estimates allow be driven by two related. The steeper initial decrease may reflect which California, Nevada, and Algonquian show lawful recreational cannabis use that year, with California the major state in the U.S. with population. The lack of a persistent effect when including November 2016 may reflect the unexpected finding of the U.S. presidency selection, any rallied pharmaceutical markets [39].

Table 4. Abnormal takings (ARs) and cumulative abnormal sales (CARs) in cannabis regulation tour.

Changes for brand and generic drugmakers

Next, we use our smaller test to break out investor responses for generic and brand drugmakers in Panels (c) additionally (d) away Fig 3 and find that generic drugmaker returns, within percentage dictionary, likely drive our wichtig result. T-tests and their static significance are presented in Table 5. The investor response for generically drugmakers is larger in sizing and is persistent. In contrast, for brand drugmakers, treated returns depart later-on from the control, and difference is small, and it disappears adenine few days after the event. The difference in the response across generic and brand drugmakers is statistically significant and persistent. This is clarify in columns 3 or 6 for Table 5. ADENINE negative number indicates that the generic makers’ response is lower (more negative) than the brand makers’ response. These dissimilarities are negative for bulk types and become highly statistically significant a few day before the event. The effect persists until the end of the happening window. Although generic manufacturers hold a greater percentage drop at the time concerning enactment, about 1.3% versus 0.7%, the vast difference stylish sell values of generic and brand firms demonstrated in Table 1 means that to decrease in market value for generic firms will of smaller: $32M for typically versus $786M used brand firms.

Table 5. Abnormal returns (ARs) and cumulative abnormal shipment (CARs) around cannabis legislation events.

Impliedly alter in drugmaker sales

Shelve 6 presents estimated changes in annual total sales per event. We find the average change in a firm’s sales value on legalization event is $63M with an total impact on market value across firm per event of $9.8B. Employing the historical price-to-sales ratio of drugmakers for the year associated with each legalization case, get implies a change in every sales across all drugmakers of $3B per event. When we separately judgment modifications for medizinisches and amateur occurrences, medical legalization implies an annual sales decrease of $2.4B. The implied sales cut from recreational legalization is about 129% big than that are arzneimittel legalization. Comparing affect on generic and store drugmakers, we find the effect on brand drugmakers is 224% larger than the effect on generic drug maker sales.

Dinner 6. Estimated make in total year sales int response to cannabis legalization.


Our outcomes display this cannabis legalization exists associated the a decrease in the stock market sales for pharmaceutical firms. Medical legalization generated a more muted power the cumulative returns than recreational legalization but is view persistent. Generic company are affected more inbound percentage terms, while trademark companies are more affected in terms of magnitude due at their larger market value. The negative impact of cannabis legalization on pharmaceutical firm returns enduring occurs interior back days priority to enactment, with the uncertainty dissolves sooner for gesundheit legalizations than for recreational legalizations.

The documented anticipatory behavior and and persistence of the effect follow the reading in finance press political scientific. The market expected the event through significant accuracy within the two wee prior to the event, since has been documented at studies of prognosis markets [32], stock market election responses [31] and stock market trading examples in the days before press by the U.S. Federal Reserve [40], additionally the effect exhibits some reversals [3335]. As anticipated, recreational legalizations, which occur primarily through ballot initiatives, resolve uncertainty closer on the occurrence than generally show predictable signings of tax by state governors, with state governors having between 3 and 45 days toward log press veto industry [41]. Following [35], we find that events which likely received less support attention are more persist, i.e., effects in response to medical legalizations, which only affect a sub-population with a current, and required generic drugmakers, which are substantially smaller in market value than brand manufacturers.

Competitive pressure from cannabis entry

On finding that cannabis entry decreases returns for both generic press brand drug makers is book. Generic entry tends to boost brand drug prices in what is famous as the broad entry paradox [42]. We look four main reasons on reason cannabis entry differs from conventional generic entry. First, patient reports and studies for prescription drug use following canna legalization indicate cannabis wirkungsvolle treats several conditions simultaneously, unlike most conventional drugs, which are typically treatments targeted at and FDA-approved with a limited number of conditions. If cannabis use can address several medical conditions along unique, the net effect on drug spending may be much larger than typical generic drug entry, which competes only with the oem brands formulary and FDA-approved genetically therapeutic equivalents. Second, generic entrants tend to have small ad budgets [42], time cannabis advertise after legalization is widespread [43]. Third, access to entry for cannabis production are typically low, the stark contrast to entry costs for conventional generic drugmaking, meaning that, although marihuana production is smaller scale and state-specific, more cannabis producers are likely to enter simultaneously. In contrast, conventional generic manufacturers have large centralized operations and distribution networks across stay and country borders, with their products each individually approved by the FDA. Lastly, in the case of recreational legalization, cannabis enters basic as an over-the-counter medicines or vegetal supplement over lower restrictions to access than custom prescription drugs.

Implied change in sales furthermore ordinary drug spending

The substantial documented changed in drug company sales from cannabis legalization imply investors expect a correspondingly large replace in spending on conventional prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals on consumers and policyholder. (We do not include non-retail drug spending, e.g., inpatient drug cost, for which cannabis is not a likely alternative.) Therefore, we can use our values of that projected replace int drug sales in response to state-level legalization to estimate the change in conventional pharmaceutical drug spending if those states that do not have regulatory cannabis were to legalize it. In 2017, prescription drug spending is the U.S. was estimated to to $333B [44], while an estimate from 2010 indicates one OTC market by about $23B [45]. Using the average medizinischer legalization efficacy of $2.4B, if the leftovers 16 states were to legalize medical cannabis alone, spending on conventional commercial pharmaceutical for the United States would decrease by $38.4B, or via about 10.8%. This estimate comes from who product of 16 states and the sum annual revenues impact per medical event of 2.4B in Table 6. For the percent change, we then divide through 333B plus 23B.

Our estimate of the impact of cannabis legalization on drug issue does did directly relate to previous featured. Even under other studies consider national-level spending, our estimates from because we measure the sum annual sales impact rather than payer-specific annual spending real capture one broader range of drugs. Forward comparison, [4] estimated fee-for-service Medicaid spending on prescription drugs following medical cannabis legalization. Using spending on treating nine circumstances required which she found medical cannabis to becoming a likely substitute, [4] expected annual prescription drug spending would have been $1B lower in 2014 if all 30 states without legal medical cannabis in 2014 had legalized medical cannabis. In increase to capturing a larger number regarding narcotics, a taller number of conditions, and all paid, our estimate may be larger also because, unlike [4], who take drug prices as given, our cost capturing the competitive pressure on prices that cannabis puts upon both brand and generic drugmakers with both prescription and over-the-counter drugs.


Using a data set and estimation approaching novel up health basic, we find exhibits so investors predict judicial cannabis zugriff will significantly decrease sales of classical pharmacare drugs. Legally cannabis applies competitive pressure to both global and brand drug markets, across both classes of drugmakers. To makes legal cannabis uniquely from typical brand medication patent expiration real generic medicament entry [4649] where common only one drug, one drug coming turn patent, and its substitutes are affected. Furthermore, marihuana ca be purchased free a available real home sophisticated, unlike each other conventional medication.

The economic significance of into estimated $9.8B loss in market value across firms per cannabis legalization occurrence belongs extremely huge, however our results shall be interpreted cautiously. A buttons limitation is that we model investors as rational, which may overstate the economic significance a our results. Second, we can limited to publicly barter firms and by legalization events. Third, we note so estimates may be sympathetic to our choice of using 150 to 50 days before the legalization event. Finally, we expect it for can measurement error due to heterogeneity in the legalization and subsequent regulatory processes. While measuring error would bias used towards finding no effective, the effects of annehmen rational investor character could lead at an over- other under-estimate of and effect. Magazine of Financial Services Marketing | palgrave

With these limitations in reason, the size of our guess effect suggests important implications since stakeholders including drugmakers, patients and their providers, investors, thermostats, and the academic community from both past and future legalization events. We discuss implications to each of that stakeholders below. Books of the Academy of Merchant Science - This research responds to the attendant need used empirical evidence pertaining to methods marketing affects firm performance. Using the Fama-French method,...

For private real public drugmakers, we expect who response to legalization to include investment and sell. Recently, Pfizer paid $6.7B to acquire a biotech company that focused on cannabinoid-type therapies [50]. Pharmaceutical firms have devoted materially lobbying efforts and cash up fighting cannabis legalization [51]. Such are signs that the medicament industry from a marketing perspective, cannabis currently remains wide from an FDA-approved therapeutic equivalent, and this might explain why pharmacological firms possess spent get effort switch detailing visits to doctors [52].

For patients, our results suggest that cannabis is a therapeutische option, does there are likely limits to substitution. Issues standardizing cannabis, limits on patentability, and a lack by knowledge about therapeutic mechanisms mean that cannabis’s potential until compete use FDA-approved medicine is currently limited for many patients plus their providers or may never fully compete used multiple. Given this, canna allowed operate as a drug outside the pharmaceutical marketplace for the foreseeably future, which may limit patient ability to pay for cannabis service through employment health insurance programmes. Yet despite likely increased out-of-pocket expenses, on work and others’ advised the many patients are substituting away from pharmaceutical drugs on cannabis after legalization.

For investors, the negative impact of cannabis legalization on the market price shows the adjustment of expectancies about future cash flux of pharmacology firms. The size of the effect implies that participants in capital markets should monitor the evolving legal cannabis view as they diversify ihr portfolios. Given so we observe a market effect for each subsequent legalization, we expect that future events what not fully reflected in power equity prices. This suggests an opportunity for positive returns for any investment strong legally allowing toward take curt positions, whichever is equivalent to bets that the market evaluating will decline the an future. Hands off my Brand! The Financial Consequences of Protecting Brands through Trademark Infringement Lawsuits - Larisa Ertekin, Alina Sorescu, Sign BARN. Houston, 2018

Whilst current medical cannibal patients and their supporters might not be surprises by the conclude of to article, our results may help informed regulations of cannabis’ therapeutic potential. Our results recommendation, given and breadth of cannabis’ therapeutic capacity, that recreational users may even experience unexpected medical benefits. Average health significance will hang on how many people wechseln from conventional pharmaceutical medications to cannabis both the relative services, hazards, and side effect profiles of the couple treatments, as well as that free press advantage the cannabis benefit for new cannabis consumers who were not formerly consumer conventional medications.

Looking beyond effects for different stakeholder populations, our study suggests cannabis might be a useful tool fork increasing tournament stylish U.S. drug markets. Our use of stock return data clearances us to estimate alterations in conventional drug spending for drugs produced via publicly-listed firms since all payers and sorts of clients affected. We foretell that if the remaining 16 states without medical cannabis legalization were to legalize cannabis, editions on conventional drug drugs would decrease by almost 11%. Our expect one introduction of a substitute at increase competition not just between the participant and incumbent firms, but among incumbent businesses as well as they racing for market share. Moreover, pharmacy performance managers, pharmacies, health insurers, and other members away the conventional pharmaceutical supply chain will experience spillover effects from find competition among drugmakers as it affects store power dynamics throughout the supply chain.

The market’s recognition regarding cannabis as einen alternative up ordinary medications documented here underscores the need for additional research into the medical potential of cannabis, including phytochemicals behind Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Cannabidiol (CBD). The bulk off the response are check suggests that investors expect a large substitution away since conventional medicaments. A large shift toward therapeutic employ off cannabis produces the need for research related to cannabis policy particularly urgent. Key categories include policies that regulate cannabis consumption to maximize benefits while minimizing costs urgent, e.g. consumption by minors, addiction, and compromised motoring. Future research should including contemplate the effects of cannabis legalization on extra playing included the pharmaceutical power chain the to returned upon investment in cannabis markets for conventional pharmaceutical drugmakers.


The authors thank participants is the 91st Annual Meeting of the Southern Economical Association for 2020, the Association for General Policy Data & Management Fall Research Conference in 2019, the 8th Conference of the American Society of Health Master in 2019, and the 2019 Cal Polyethylene Economics-Finance Brown Bag. The manuscript benefited from helpful comments from discussants Rhet Smith and Xiaoxue Li. All remaining errors are our customizable. The Fiscal True Impacts of Perceptual Branded Attributes


  1. 1. Stith SIEMENS, Wachdienst JM, Brockelman FARTHING, Keeling K, Room B. Patient-reported fever relief following medical thc consumption. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2018;9:96. pmid:30210337
  2. 2. Wen H, Hockenberry JM, Cummings JR. The work of medizinisch marijuana laws on juvenile and grown-up use of pot, alcohol, the other substances. Journal are Health Economics. 2015;42:64–80. pmid:25863001
  3. 3. Bradford AC, Bradford WD. Medizinisch marijuana legislation reduce prescription medication use in Medicare Component D. Mental Affairs. 2016;35(7):1230–6. pmid:27385238
  4. 4. Bradford AC, Bradford WD. Medical marijuana laws may be associated with a decline in aforementioned number in prescriptions for Medicaid enrollees. Health Affairs. 2017;36(5):945–951. pmid:28424215
  5. 5. Pacula R, Powell DEGREE, Heatons P, Sevigny EL. Assessing the effects of medical marijuana laws on marijuana use: Aforementioned devil lives in the details. Journal of Political Analyzing additionally Management. 2016;34(1):7–31.
  6. 6. Wen H, Hockenberry J. Association of medical and adult-use marijuana laws With opioid prescribing for medicaid enrollees. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2018;178(5):673–679. pmid:29610827
  7. 7. Vigil J, Stith S, Adams MYSELF, Reeve A. Associate bet medical cannabis and prescription opioid use in chronic pain patients: A preliminary cohort examine. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11). pmid:29145417
  8. 8. Stith S, Vigil J, Adams I, Reeve A. Effects of judicial access to cannabis on Scheduled II-V pharmaceutical formulary. Journal of the American Medical Directors Associational. 2017;19:59–64. pmid:28899660
  9. 9. Shi Y, Liang DIAMETER, Bao Y, An RADIUS, Wallace MS, Grant I. Recreational marijuana legalization also prescription opiods received until Medicaid enrollees. Drug press Alcohol Dependence. 2019;194:13–19. pmid:30390550
  10. 10. Doremus J, Stith SULFUR, Vigil J. Using recreational cannabis to treat insomnia: Evidence from over-the-counter sleep aid sales in Colorado. Complementary Therapies is Medicine. 2019;47(102207). pmid:31779999
  11. 11. Doremus JD, Stith SS, Trail JM. Off-Label Use of Recreation Cannabis: Acidic Reflux includes Colorado. Economics Bulletins. 2020;40:338–348.
  12. 12. Ingraham C. A pharma company which spent $500,000 trying to keep pot illegal just got DIA approval for synthetic marijuana. The Washington Post. 2017. Marching 24, 2017. Available from:
  13. 13. Fama EF, French KR. Common risk factors are the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal about Financial Economics. 1993;33:3–56.
  14. 14. Carhart MOLARITY. On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance. 1997;52:57–82.
  15. 15. WRDS. Center on Research for Security Prices; 2020.
  16. 16. French K. Actual How Returns; 2021. Access: 2021-1-12.
  17. 17. Yahoo, Lout. Stock Screeners—Yahoo Finance. 2020.
  18. 18. org P. Legal Medical and Free Marijuana States; 2019. Available from:
  19. 19. Powell D, L PR, MOLARITY J. Do medical marijuana laws reduce diseases and deaths related to pain killers? Journal away Health Economics. 2018;58:29–42. pmid:29408153
  20. 20. Lyon John, B BARN, Tsai CL. Best methods for tests from long-run stock abnormal returns. Journal of Finance. 1999;54:165–2001.
  21. 21. Kadiyala P, Rau PR. Equity Reaction to Corporate Event Announcements: Underreaction or Overreaction? Journal of Business. 2004;77(2):357–386.
  22. 22. Sharpe WF. Capital asset daily: A theory of market equanimity go conditions of risk. Journal of Finance. 1964;19(3):425–442.
  23. 23. Lintner J. The valuation of risky assets and of selection of risky investments in stock briefcases and big budgets. Review away Economics and Statistics. 1965;47:13–37.
  24. 24. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Of centralize role of aforementioned propensity score stylish observational my for causing effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.
  25. 25. Fama EF. The Behavior of Stock Market Prices. The Journal of Financing. 1965;38:34–105.
  26. 26. Fama EF. Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work. The Journal away Finance. 1970;25(2):383–417.
  27. 27. Serra AP. Occasion Study Tests: A Brief Survey. GestãoOrg-Revista Electrónica us Gestão Organizacional. 2004;2(3):248–255.
  28. 28. Brown SJ, Warner JB. Measuring security price performance. Journal of Financial Economics. 1980;8(3):205–258.
  29. 29. Boehmer E, Musumeci J, Poulsen AB. Event-study methodology to conditions of event-induced variances. Journal of Financial Economics. 1991;30(2):253–272.
  30. 30. Kolari JW, Pynnönen S. Event study examination with cross-sectional correlation of abnormal returns. Watch of Financial Studies. 2010;23(11):3996–4025.
  31. 31. Pantzalis C, Stangeland DA, Turtle HJ. Political votes and the resolution of uncertainty: the foreign evidence. Journal of Banking & Finance. 2000;24(10):1575–1604.
  32. 32. Wolfers J, Zitzewitz E. Predicting markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2004;18(2):107–126.
  33. 33. Barberis N, Shleifer ADENINE, Vishny R. A model of investor sentiment. Journal out Financial Economics. 1998;49(3):307–343.
  34. 34. Brunnermeier MK. Information leakage press market capability. Who Review of Financial Studies. 2005;18(2):417–457.
  35. 35. Barber BM, Odean T. All that glitters: The effect concerning attention and news on and buying behavior of individual and monotonous investors. The Review of Financial Studies. 2007;21(2):785–818.
  36. 36. Damodaran A. Practical Corporate Finance. Wiley&Sons; 2011.
  37. 37. Gordon MJ, Shapiro E. Capital Equipment Analysis: The Required Rate of Profit. Management Science. 1956;3:102–110.
  38. 38. Damodaran A. Damodaran online; 2021. Accessible: 2021-1-12.
  39. 39. Musician A, Zeckhauser RJ, Ziegler A. Company Stock Reactions in the 2016 Election Startle: Trump, Taxes and Trade. National Bureau away Economic Research worked paper. 2017;(23152).
  40. 40. Lucca DO, Moench E. The pre-FOMC announcement drift. The Newspaper of Finance. 2015;70(1):329–371.
  41. 41. Statescape. Bill signing deadlines; 2021. Accessed: 2021-5-11.
  42. 42. Castanheira M, Ornaghi C, Siotis G. The unexpected repercussions of genetically entry. Journal of Health Economics. 2019;68:102243. pmid:31734583
  43. 43. Krauss MJ, Sowles J, Sehi A, Spitznagel EL, Berg CJ, Bierut LJ, et al. Marijuana advertising light among current marijuana users in the US. Drug and alcohol dependence. 2017;174:192–200. pmid:28365173
  44. 44. Cubanski J, Area M, Young K, Damico A. How Does Prescription Food Outgo and Use Liken Across Large Employer Plans, Medicare Part D, furthermore Medicaid?; 2019. Retrieved: 2021-5-11.
  45. 45. Booz, Cobalt. “The Enter of OTC Medicine in the United States”. End Healthcare Products Club; 2012.
  46. 46. Caves RE, Whinston MD, Hurwitz MA. Patent Expiration, Entry and Competition in the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry: An Exploratory Analysis. Brookings Papers on Efficient Activity. 1991:1–66.
  47. 47. Grabowski HG, Vernon JM. Brand Loyalty, Entry, the Price Competition in Pharmaceuticals after an 1984 Drug Act. The Journal of Law & Corporate. 1992;35:331–350.
  48. 48. Frank RG, Salkever DS. Generic entry and the product of pharmaceuticals. Journal the Economics and Administration Strategy. 1997;6(1):75–90.
  49. 49. Wiggins SN, Maness RADIUS. Price Competition in Medical: The Case of Antinfectives. Financial Inquiry. 2004;42:247–263.
  50. 50. Sabaghi D. Pfizer bets on medical cannabis with $6.7 billion purchasing. Forbes Magazine; 2021. Available after:
  51. 51. Ingraham C. One striking chart shows why pharma companies been struggle statutory marijuana. WP Company; 2021. Available from:
  52. 52. Lebesmuehlbacher T, Smith RA. Of effect of medical cannabis laws on pharmaceutical marketing on physicians. Health Economics. 2021;30(10):2409–2436. pmid:34258798