Estimating the size of the stimulants market

• Author: Singleton, Nicola; Kalamara, Eleni; Noor, André
• Pages: 21-28

TECHNICALREPORTIEstimatingthesizeofthemainillicitretaildrugmarketsinEurope:anupdate

21



4Estimatingthesizeofthestimulantsmarket

ThemainillicitstimulantdrugsavailableinEuropearecocaineandtheamphetaminetypestimulants(ATS)

amphetamine,methamphetamineandMDMA(oftenknownasecstasywhenintabletformorMDMAin

crystalform).Thereareregionaldifferencesintherelativeimportanceofthedifferentstimulants,with

cocainegenerallymoreimportantinwesternandsoutherncountriesandamphetaminespredominantin

northernandeasternEurope.Amphetamineismuchmorecommonlyusedinmostcountriesthan

methamphetamine.However,insomedatasetsitisnotpossibletodistinguishbetweenthesetwosubstances.

OfparticularimportanceforthesemarketsizeestimatesisthefactthatmostGPSdonotdistinguishbetween

thesetwosubstances,inpartbecausemanyusersareunawareofwhatformofamphetaminetheyareusing,

particularlyincountrieswhereuseofmethamphetamineisstillcomparativelyrare.Forthisreason,inthese

estimateswecalculateageneric‘amphetamines’estimate.Itisassumedthatthisisgenerallyamphetamine,

exceptinthecaseofCzechiaandCypruswhereotherdataindicatethatmethamphetamineismorecommon.

Thesamebasicapproachasthatdescribedforcannabiswasappliedtococaine,MDMAandamphetamines

(namely,establishingtheamountconsumedbymultiplyingestimatesofthenumberofusersbytheamount

used,andconvertingthistoavaluebymultiplyingbyprice).However,lessinformationisavailableforthese

drugsthanforcannabis,andprevalenceofuseismuchlower,soitisnotpossibletosubdivideusersintoas

manysubgroups.

Inthisroundofestimates,theuseofcrackcocaineaswellaspowdercocainebyhighriskopioiduserswas

includedinthemarketsizeestimates.Thishasasignificantimpactintheestimatesinsomecountries,

especiallyinthecaseoftheUnitedKingdom.Itisonefactorbehindtheconsiderablyhigherestimateforthe

sizeofthecocainemarketintheseupdatedestimates.

4.1Numbersofstimulantusers

Stimulantusersinthegeneralpopulation

Thebasicapproach

Themethodofestimatingthenumberofusersinthegeneralpopulationremainedunchangedforthisround

ofestimates,althoughasdiscussedearlierthedatahavebeenupdatedandavailabilityhasimproved.

Aswasthecaseforcannabis,prevalenceratesobtainedfromGPSaremultipliedby2017Eurostatpopulation

datafor15to64yearolds.However,farlessinformationisavailableinGPSonthefrequencyofusefor

stimulantsthanforcannabis.Becauseofthelowerprevalenceratesfortheuseofthesedrugs,fewcountries

haveasufficientnumbersoflastmonthuserstoproviderobustdataonfrequencyofuseinthelastmonth.

Hence,itisnotpossibletodistinguishthesamerangeofusertypesaswaspossibleforcannabis.Aswasthe

caseforthemarketsizeestimatespublishedin2016,itwasonlypossibletodistinguishtwobroadgroupsof

usersbasedonfrequencyofusewhichweremappedontothedataavailablefromtheEWSDasfollows:

 infrequentuserswhousedlessthanonceamonthorlessthan11timesayear,approximatedintheGPS

bythoseusinginthelastyearbutnotinthelastmonth(LYP–LMP);and

 frequentuserswhousedon11ormoredaysayearoratleastonceamonthapproximatedbythoseusing

inthelastmonth(LMP).

Onlylastyearprevalenceandlastmonthprevalencearerequiredtodistinguishthesegroups.

Imputationprocedures

Althoughonlydataonlastyearprevalence(LYP)andlastmonthprevalence(LMP)arenecessarytoestimate

theprevalenceofbothinfrequentusers(LYP–LMP)andfrequentusers(LMP)andthesearegenerally