Drivers of simultaneous use of wine and cannabis among German wine consumers

In many high-income countries, wine consumption has declined over the past decade. This reflects growing health concerns, stronger competition from other beverages and changing attitudes towards alcohol (Gil-Alana et al., 2024). At the same time, cannabis use has risen, particularly among younger adults, and is becoming more socially and legally accepted (UNODC, 2023). This trend raises important questions about how cannabis may influence wine demand.

Recent evidence shows a steady decline in wine consumption across Europe, including Germany (OIV, 2025). At the same time, cannabis use is rising, particularly among adults under 40 (Logan, 2023). Similar trends are visible in countries that are debating or have already implemented cannabis legalization, such as the UK (Raitasalo et al., 2023), Canada (Mital et al., 2024; Hobin et al., 2023) and parts of the United States (Weinberger et al., 2021). The spread of cannabis use is closely linked to changing legal frameworks. In many Western countries, regulatory reforms have made cannabis more accessible (Kilmer et al., 2022). In Germany, recreational cannabis was legalized in April 2024 (Logan, 2023). This creates a timely setting for studying interactions between wine and cannabis.

Debates about whether cannabis and alcohol act as substitutes or complements have gained renewed attention with cannabis legalization (Boyle et al., 2021). Substitution suggests that greater availability or acceptance of cannabis may reduce alcohol intake, potentially benefiting public health if cannabis is viewed as less harmful (Smart and Pacula, 2019). Complementarity, by contrast, implies that cannabis use accompanies or even increases alcohol consumption, raising concerns about cumulative health and safety risks (Guttmannova et al., 2021).

These perspectives reflect different assumptions about consumer motives and contexts. Substitution is often linked to health concerns, stress management, or lifestyle changes (Sher et al., 2007), potentially challenging traditional alcohol markets, including wine. Complementarity, on the other hand, is commonly associated with social contexts or the desire for combined psychoactive effects. In this case, changes in cannabis regulation may directly affect alcohol use (O'Hara et al., 2016).

Although economic models have long theorized about these dynamics (O'Hara et al., 2016), empirical evidence remains limited and fragmented. Most studies focus on beer or spirits and rely on aggregate economic or epidemiological data. Wine has been largely overlooked, despite its distinct consumer base and cultural role within many Western societies.

This study addresses the research gap by examining simultaneous wine–cannabis consumption among German wine drinkers. Using survey data and logistic regression, we analyse when simultaneous consumption occurs and the motivations and occasions behind it.

Our contribution is threefold. First, previous research on cannabis motives has mainly focused on students and young adults (Stevens et al., 2021; Boyle et al., 2021; O'Hara et al., 2016). We extend this to a broader demographic and provide a European perspective relevant to other high-income countries. Second, this is, to our knowledge, the first study to explicitly examine the complementary relationship between wine and cannabis. Third, we link motivations and consumption occasions to simultaneous use. This moves beyond frequency-based approaches and provides a more nuanced understanding of why and when both substances are consumed together.

This work is part of a broader research project on wine–cannabis interactions Ghvanidze et al. (2025a–d), with the present paper focusing specifically on individuals who consume both substances simultaneously.

Research on alcohol and cannabis shows mixed evidence on whether the two substances act as substitutes or complements. In a complementary relationship, use of one substance reinforces the other, potentially compounding health risks (Gunn et al., 2022). In a substitutive relationship, cannabis replaces alcohol, which may reduce alcohol-related harms (Weinberger et al., 2021). Policy interventions restricting one substance have produced mixed outcomes: some studies report increased use of the alternative, while others show declines (O'Hara et al., 2016).

Legalization has further shaped these dynamics. Medical cannabis laws are associated with higher use among adults, though evidence for adolescents remains inconclusive (Bae and Kerr, 2020). Recreational legalization, however, is consistently linked with greater adolescent and young adult consumption (Paschall et al., 2021).

Empirical results on substitution remain inconsistent. Some studies suggest reduced alcohol use under liberal cannabis policies (Subbaraman, 2016), while others document increased simultaneous use after legalization (García-Ramírez et al., 2021). Findings on cannabis and other addictive substances also remain inconclusive (Guttmannova et al., 2021). Despite these inconsistencies, research consistently shows a positive association between cannabis and alcohol use. Cannabis users are more likely to consume alcohol (Fleming et al., 2016; Yurasek et al., 2017), with daily cannabis use linked to heavier drinking (Gunn et al., 2019). At the same time, long-term declines in alcohol use among cannabis users point to substitution (Weinberger et al., 2021).

Motives play a critical role in shaping whether alcohol and cannabis act as substitutes or complements. Both substances share physiological and social mechanisms that promote complementary use, such as activating similar reward pathways and enhancing intoxication (Hall and Lynskey, 2005; O'Hara et al., 2016). Social and enhancement motives are strongly linked to simultaneous use (Stevens et al., 2021), often intensifying effects through “crossfading” (Boyle et al., 2021), while coping motives are more likely to encourage substitution, with one substance replacing the other to manage stress (Simons et al., 2000; O'Hara et al., 2016).

Planned simultaneous use is typically motivated by socializing and enhancement, whereas unplanned simultaneous use is more often triggered by peer offers or situational factors (Stevens et al., 2022). Coping motives, in contrast, are associated with greater cannabis use but not necessarily alcohol (Simons et al., 2005). Studies further show that individuals seeking to regulate negative emotions are more likely to substitute substances, while those focused on social or recreational goals tend to combine them (O'Hara et al., 2016; Boyle et al., 2021).

Context also shapes how alcohol and cannabis are used. Alcohol is strongly associated with social environments such as parties, bars, and celebrations, where social and enhancement motives dominate (McCabe et al., 2014; Kuntsche et al., 2010). By contrast, drinking alone or at home is more often linked to coping motives and stress management (Cooper, 1994; Mohr et al., 2010).

Cannabis use mirrors this duality. Social consumption commonly occurs with friends or partners across settings such as homes, nightlife venues and festivals (Skliamis et al., 2021). However, frequent users often consume alone, particularly when experiencing negative emotions, where coping motives outweigh social drivers (Buckner and Terlecki, 2016; Fleming et al., 2022). Studies confirm that coping-related cannabis use is more likely to occur in solitary settings, whereas social motives dominate occasional and recreational use (O'Hara et al., 2016; Ghvanidze et al., 2025a, c).

Prior studies focused on separate consumption of wine and cannabis, examining substitution and complementarity across wine drinker segments (Ghvanidze et al., 2025b) defined by consumption frequency, motivations or wine types (Ghvanidze et al., 2025d). In these studies, wine and cannabis were treated as alternative choices across different occasions rather than as substances consumed together.

The present study differs conceptually and empirically by focusing explicitly on cannabis consumers who also consume wine either simultaneously or separately with cannabis. Instead of looking at whether people replace wine with cannabis over time, we focus on cannabis users to examine why and under which conditions they are consumed together. Guided by the framework in Figure 1, we analyse the situations, motives and contexts that lead to simultaneous consumption. This shift in focus introduces a different dependent variable and a different behavioural mechanism.

Accordingly, this study explores three research questions that reflect insights from prior literature on frequency patterns (Section 2.1), motivational drivers (Section 2.2), and situational contexts (Section 2.3) to explain the pattern of consumption, which serves as the variable of interest in this study. In particular, we distinguish two patterns of consumption: simultaneous consumption (complementarity between substances), in which the substances are used together, and separate consumption (substitution between substances), in which one substance is chosen over the other.

The survey was designed by adapting established instruments on alcohol and cannabis use motives (Cooper, 1994; Simons et al., 1998; O'Hara et al., 2016). To ensure clarity and usability, a pilot with 25 participants tested wording, flow, and length, after which minor refinements were made. The final version was fielded through Trend Research's online panel, using random sampling. Quotas from the Wine Consumer Analysis (Szolnoki, 2019) ensured representativeness by age and gender among German wine drinkers under 60. Eligibility required respondents to be at least 18 years old and to have consumed wine at least twice in the past 30 days. Roughly half the sample was screened to include cannabis users (medicinal or recreational) in the past year, randomly drawn from this subgroup.

From 1,546 screened individuals, 523 completed the survey, including 215 cannabis users. Among those consuming both wine and cannabis, 53% (n = 115) reported simultaneous use, providing a robust basis for comparing simultaneous and separate patterns. The survey took place in 2021, prior to legalization, during a period without strict confinement in Germany.

Although the data stem from a broader survey used in related studies (Ghvanidze et al., 2025b, d), this paper relies on a distinct analytical focus specifically designed to capture simultaneous consumption behaviour. While the number of cannabis users is identical (n = 215), the dependent variables, analytical framework and theoretical interpretation differ from those of the earlier studies.

Wine motives were measured with a 24-item version of Cooper's Drinking Motives Questionnaire (Cooper, 1994). Cannabis users completed the Marijuana Motives Measure (Simons et al., 1998), widely used in cannabis research (O'Hara et al., 2016; Simons et al., 2005). Items used five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Frequency of wine and cannabis use, as well as simultaneous use across occasions, was assessed on a six-point scale from “several times per week” (1) to “never” (6). Simultaneous use of wine and cannabis was assessed as a nominal variable (yes/no), based on a question asking whether respondents had ever used wine and cannabis at the same time. This question did not specify particular situations or occasions. Respondents also provided demographic information, including age, gender, education and employment status.

Empirical methods combine descriptive (statistical) and inferential (econometric) approaches. While descriptive statistics establish the empirical foundation by characterizing the sample, inferential econometric modelling enables the identification of drivers and the generalization of findings within the broader consumer population.

First, a cross-tabulation analysis is conducted to describe the relationship between the frequencies of cannabis and wine consumption, also across various occasions. Second, following the procedures outlined in Ghvanidze et al. (2025a, b, c), factor analysis was conducted to uncover the underlying structure of consumption motives in relation to consumption behaviour. Varimax rotation was used to refine the number of variables for wine and cannabis consumption motives. The reliability of the resulting constructs was evaluated using Cronbach's α.

Finally, we focus on the sub-sample of wine and cannabis users (i.e. we exclude respondents who have never consumed cannabis) and apply an econometric modelling approach to examine the factors influencing separate versus simultaneous consumption, estimating a logistic model by the maximum likelihood estimator as:

where $Yi$ is a dependent binary variable, which equals one if an individual $i$ has ever consumed wine and cannabis simultaneously and zero otherwise. A vector $freqi$ measures consumption frequencies for wine and cannabis (in categories). Since wine consumption is measured in the survey for several wine types (red, white, rosé, sparkling and dessert), wine frequency is defined by the frequency of the wine type that was consumed the most. $Fw,ij$ and $Fc,ij$ are factor scores from the factor analysis, characterizing the motivations (⁠$j$⁠) for wine and cannabis consumption decisions, while $Occw,im$ and $Occc,im$ capture occasions (⁠$m$⁠) of wine and cannabis consumption, respectively. In addition, a vector $Zi$ includes socio-demographic variables, such as gender, age, income and education. A detailed description of the dependent and explanatory variables is provided in Appendix Table A1.

The coefficients $β1$⁠, $β2$ and $β3$ measure the effect of wine and cannabis consumption frequency, motivation and occasion on the likelihood of simultaneous consumption of wine and cannabis, respectively. Associations with socio-demographic characteristics are indicated by $γ′s$⁠. The error term $ϵi$ is assumed to follow a standard logistic distribution.

To account for a relatively small sample size of wine and cannabis consumers and potential multicollinearity, we estimate equation (2)separately for consumption frequencies (⁠$freqi$⁠), motivations (⁠$motivi$⁠) and occasions (⁠$occi$⁠); however, we include socio-demographics (⁠$Zi$⁠) in each of the three model specifications.

Results section provides an overview of sample characteristics in Section 4.1. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 present the findings from the statistical analyses. Section 4.4 reports the econometric results. The cross-tabulation and factor analysis in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 provide a descriptive overview of the relationships between consumption behaviour (separate and simultaneous use) and consumption frequency, occasions and motivations within our sample. In Section 4.4, we then use these factors as independent variables in a logistic regression model. This allows us to identify which drivers significantly predict consumption behaviour.

All study participants are drinkers of at least one of the five wine types specified in the survey, with a slight majority being female (54.3%). They represent a group of adults aged between 20 and 60, with an average age of 38.3 years. A significant portion of the sample (43%) falls between the ages of 29 and 43; around one-fourth are under 28 years old, and 31.4% are over 44. Most respondents have vocational or upper secondary education (53.3%), and the majority are employed (83%). Regarding personal income, 43% of respondents earn less than €36,000 annually, while a quarter earn over €50,000.

Concerning wine consumption habits, over 40% of participants report drinking white wine at least once a week or several times a month. Similarly, about 40% of respondents report using cannabis either frequently or occasionally, with approximately 22% using it several times a week and 18% using it several times a month. Finally, among cannabis and wine users, 53% (115 respondents) have consumed wine and cannabis together, whereas the remaining 100 respondents (47%) have always separated wine and cannabis consumption from each other.

• RQ1: How do wine and cannabis consumption frequencies shape consumption behaviour?

The entire sub-sample of wine and cannabis consumers, split into two groups of separate and simultaneous consumers, is dominated by people who consume wine more frequently than cannabis (Table 1). Although the distribution of the individuals is comparable across groups by wine consumption frequency (compare columns ‘Total’ across groups), the share of frequent cannabis consumers is higher in the simultaneous consumers group (compare the row ‘Total’ across groups). The consumption frequency of wine and cannabis is strongly positively correlated in the group of simultaneous consumers, while this relationship is negative in the group of separate consumers. For instance, 36% of the sample have indicated moderate or frequent consumption of both substances in the simultaneous consumers group, whereas 19% of the sample are moderate or frequent consumers of both substances in the group of separate consumers.

• RQ2: Which occasions most strongly drive consumption behaviour?

Considering the occasions, wine is commonly consumed in familial settings (94%), at social gatherings and parties (93%), and with friends at home (93%), usually several times a month or a year (Table 2). Moreover, the higher the frequency of wine consumption, the more popular the house settings are. In contrast, occasional wine consumers tend to consume wine in outside settings at cafes, restaurants, and pubs. For separate cannabis use, the most common occasion is at home, either with friends (83%), at parties (67%) or alone (68%). Moreover, people with higher consumption patterns tend to consume cannabis alone at home, whereas people with lower consumption habits mostly consume with friends and at parties at home. A pattern similar to separate cannabis consumption is observed for the simultaneous consumption of wine and cannabis. However, among occasional users of wine and cannabis, consumption at cafes, restaurants and pubs is more common.

Looking at the response category “never”, wine consumers are most sceptical about drinking wine alone at home (24%). In contrast, most cannabis consumers have never used cannabis in cafés and restaurants (61%) or in pubs (50%). However, only 22% keep this pattern when cannabis is consumed together with wine. For home consumption with family, 56% of cannabis consumers report that they never use cannabis in this setting. This share remains similarly high when cannabis is consumed simultaneously with wine (51%).

• RQ3: Which motivations underpin consumption behaviour?

Details of the factor analysis of wine and cannabis consumption motives, including the assigned items, means and standard deviations, are presented in (Ghvanidze et al., 2025a–c). In those studies, a five-factor solution was established for wine motives (Ghvanidze et al., 2025b) and a four-factor solution for cannabis motives (Ghvanidze et al., 2025a, c), both demonstrating high internal consistency and construct validity. The present research draws directly on these validated factor structures, using them as the basis for analysing differences between separate and simultaneous consumers.

In summary, socializing emerges as the primary motivation for wine consumption and enhancement for cannabis use (x̄ = 3.38; x̄ = 3.52), followed by enhancement for wine (x̄ = 3.32) and coping and creativity for cannabis (x̄ = 2.85). Coping and expanding creativity are more endorsed for cannabis (x̄ = 2.85) than for wine (x̄ = 2.83; x̄ = 2.82). Conformity does not emerge as a significant factor for either substance.

The results of the logistic regression analysis exploring the drivers of simultaneous consumption, such as consumption frequencies, occasions and motivational factors, along with socio-demographic variables, are provided in Table 3. Additionally, using the logistic regression estimates, we report predictive margins in Appendix Figure A1. These show the average probabilities of simultaneous consumption and their confidence intervals across different levels of consumption frequency, motivations and occasions.

The sign of the estimated parameters suggests that higher education and income may be negatively associated with the likelihood of simultaneous wine and cannabis consumption. However, the estimated coefficients for most socio-demographic control variables – age, gender, education and income – are not statistically significant at any conventional level. Nevertheless, in the last specification (Consumption motivation), gender does reach significance: the odds of women consuming wine and cannabis together are 1.65 times higher than for men. As a second exception, the odds of simultaneous consumption are also higher (by 1.50) for tertiary education; however, this effect holds only for consumption at home with family members and is weakly significant, at the 10% level.

Regarding RQ1, the model on consumption frequencies shows that more frequent cannabis use is associated with a higher likelihood of simultaneous wine and cannabis consumption. In contrast, frequent wine consumption is not associated with a higher likelihood of simultaneous use. Specifically, individuals who consume cannabis several times a year are twice as likely to consume wine and cannabis together compared with those who use cannabis at most once a year. Those who consume cannabis several times a month or week are four times more likely to use both substances simultaneously.

The estimated parameters for wine consumption frequencies are statistically insignificant. That implies that the simultaneous consumption of wine and cannabis is common among the frequent consumers of cannabis. In contrast, frequent wine consumers are as likely to consume wine and cannabis simultaneously as infrequent wine consumers are.

The estimation results of the model “occasions” (RQ2) indicate that the situational setups are important in explaining the effect of wine and cannabis consumption frequencies on their simultaneous consumption. Particularly, social settings such as gatherings with friends or parties are important for frequent cannabis consumers to combine wine and cannabis consumption, while visiting cafes and restaurants is decisive for frequent wine consumers to opt for consuming wine and cannabis simultaneously. Results also identify statistically significant effects for the occasion “at home, alone”; however, the effects for this category are largely comparable across wine and cannabis consumption frequencies.

Estimation results for motivational factors presented in the model “motivations” (RQ3) indicate that individuals with a greater motivation to consume wine for enhancement reasons and cannabis for socializing and expansion or coping and creativity are less interested in the simultaneous consumption of wine and cannabis (estimated odds are 0,43, 0.61 and 0.58, respectively). By contrast, other motives such as socializing, coping, expansion or conformity for wine, and conformity or enhancement for cannabis, do not significantly predict simultaneous consumption.

The pseudo-R² values for the logistic regression models are low (0.06–0.16), which is expected in studies of complex human behaviour using cross-sectional data. Since the goal is to identify significant marginal effects rather than maximize predictive accuracy, the significance and direction of key variables confirm their relevance in explaining simultaneous consumption, fulfilling the study's objective. Nevertheless, higher predictive accuracy (higher pseudo-R² values) would be achieved if the data were longitudinal rather than cross-sectional. Using psychological and biological data, e.g. information about personality traits, emotions and health attitudes, would have been another source of improvements in prediction accuracy.

This study highlights how wine and cannabis function as either complements or substitutes depending on consumption patterns. While wine is consumed more frequently overall, the likelihood of simultaneous use is primarily driven by cannabis consumption frequency. This asymmetry suggests complementarity among frequent cannabis users, whereas substitution occurs when consumption motivations or contexts differ.

It is important to note that data collection took place prior to the legalization of recreational cannabis in Germany; consumption patterns, motives and the substitution-complementarity balance may have shifted under the current regulatory framework.

The results indicate that consumption contexts are closely associated with the simultaneous use of wine and cannabis. For frequent cannabis users, social settings such as gatherings with friends or parties provide particularly conducive environments for simultaneous consumption, underscoring the importance of social and enhancement motives in simultaneous consumption. In contrast, for frequent wine consumers, contexts such as cafés and restaurants appear more relevant, reflecting wine's cultural embedding in dining and leisure occasions. This pattern is consistent with prior research showing that alcohol consumption is closely linked to social environments, where drinking is motivated by social rewards and a desire for inclusion (McCabe et al., 2014; Cooper et al., 2015). Enhancement motives related to pleasure further support alcohol use in both public and private settings (Cooper et al., 1992; Kuntsche et al., 2010).

Interestingly, simultaneous consumption in home-alone settings appears to be less associated with the dominance of one substance and more by shared emotional or situational factors, such as stress relief or mood regulation (Cooper, 1994; Mohr et al., 2010; Buckner and Terlecki, 2016). In addition, cannabis use at home may reflect a preference for privacy and efforts to avoid the social stigma that still surrounds its consumption (Liebregts et al., 2015).

The factor analysis indicates that socializing and enhancement are key motivations for both wine and cannabis consumption, whereas coping and creativity-related motives are more strongly associated with cannabis use. These motivational patterns help explain differences between simultaneous and separate consumption. Individuals who consume wine mainly for socializing and enhancement, but cannabis for coping and emotional regulation, are more likely to use the substances separately rather than simultaneously. This finding aligns with prior research showing that alcohol use is typically embedded in positive social contexts, while cannabis use is more often linked to coping with stress, anxiety or social isolation (O'Hara et al., 2016; Buckner and Terlecki, 2016; Fleming et al., 2022).

The logistic regression results indicate that frequent cannabis consumption is significantly associated with a higher likelihood of simultaneous wine and cannabis use. In contrast, wine consumption frequency alone does not predict simultaneous use. This asymmetry suggests that cannabis, rather than wine, is more closely associated with simultaneous consumption, pointing to complementarity among frequent cannabis users but not among frequent wine consumers. Our findings are consistent with previous research showing a positive association between cannabis and alcohol use, particularly among frequent recreational users (Fleming et al., 2016; Gunn et al., 2019). Such patterns may increase vulnerability to simultaneous use–related risks, including impairment and risky behaviours (Gunn et al., 2019), potentially linked to overlapping dopaminergic effects (Hall and Lynskey, 2005).

The findings point to two main user typologies. The first group consists of frequent cannabis users who deliberately consume wine and cannabis simultaneously, most often in social settings such as gatherings with friends or parties. For these users, simultaneous consumption is primarily associated with socializing and enhancement motives. The second group comprises separate consumers, who tend to use wine and cannabis in different contexts and for different purposes. In this group, wine is typically consumed for socializing and enhancement in dining and leisure occasions, whereas cannabis is more often used for coping or to expand creativity in home-alone settings. Although home-alone simultaneous use is observed in some cases, it appears to reflect situational or emotional factors rather than a distinct user typology. While these typologies are derived from observed patterns rather than a formal segmentation analysis, they help clarify the heterogeneity of wine–cannabis consumption and the conditions under which complementarity or substitution is more likely to occur.

From a policy perspective, these findings indicate that strategies to reduce the risks associated with simultaneous use should not focus solely on alcohol. Although infrequent cannabis use is generally associated with lower risk, the simultaneous use of wine and cannabis increases the likelihood of accidents and alcohol-related harms (Lee et al., 2022). Importantly, simultaneous use appears to be most strongly associated with frequent cannabis users. Given the cross-sectional design, this pattern cannot be interpreted causally; however, interventions aimed at reducing cannabis consumption in this group may be more effective in limiting simultaneous use than policies targeting wine consumption.

The findings of this study indicate that complementarity between wine and cannabis consumption is more pronounced among frequent cannabis users than among regular wine drinkers. This challenges the dominant view of cannabis primarily as a substitute for alcohol and suggests a more nuanced simultaneous use relationship. For the wine industry, this implies that cannabis users – particularly frequent ones – should be understood as a distinct consumer segment. Rather than relying solely on traditional product-category segmentation, wine marketers may need to adopt strategies that recognize shared consumption motives and behavioral overlaps between cannabis and wine use.

One important implication concerns product innovation. The observed complementarity between wine and cannabis, together with differences in consumption motives, points to opportunities for alcohol-free wine products infused with THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) or CBD (cannabidiol). Such hybrid formats may help the wine industry reconnect with younger consumers, whose interest in wine has been declining (Statista, 2023), while aligning with broader trends toward health and wellness. Market data reinforce this potential: 16–27% of Canadian adults reported a willingness to substitute alcohol with cannabis-infused beverages (Charlebois et al., 2020), and younger beer drinkers with prior cannabis experience were the most likely to adopt such products (Staples, 2024). Importantly, perceived safety is not a major barrier – cannabis-infused drinks were rated comparable to traditional beverages in terms of nutrition, healthiness and safety, even when THC labels explicitly highlighted euphoric effects (Staples, 2024).

More specifically, the findings suggest differentiated innovation strategies across consumer segments. For consumers who primarily associate wine with social interaction and enhancement, THC-infused wines may represent a viable alternative. The results of the present study show that simultaneous users are motivated by socializing and enhancement and tend to combine wine and cannabis in social settings. Building on these findings, THC-infused products may appeal to consumers seeking both novelty and familiarity by combining the psychoactive effects of cannabis, such as euphoria and relaxation, with the familiar taste profile and social associations of wine. Common motivations for cannabis use, including recreation, enjoyment, stress and anxiety reduction, appetite stimulation and improved sleep, further support the relevance of such products for specific consumer segments (Staples, 2024).

Conversely, for consumers who use cannabis primarily for coping or health-related purposes, CBD-infused wines represent a more suitable alternative. The most common motives for CBD use include reducing anxiety and stress, enhancing overall well-being and supporting general health (Staples, 2024). Traditional wine drinkers who use cannabis only occasionally may be particularly receptive to low-dose CBD-infused or alcohol-free wines, as such products may support wellness-oriented goals without introducing the psychoactive effects of THC. In this sense, alcohol-free CBD-based wines may appeal to health-conscious consumers seeking to avoid the compounded risks associated with combining alcohol and THC.

Because of the subtle, non-intoxicating effects of CBD products (Grinspoon, 2021), CBD-infused wines could attract a smaller but clearly defined consumer segment. Previous studies indicate that CBD and hemp-based products are often perceived as premium or luxury goods, particularly in contrast to THC-based alternatives (Kim and Mark, 2023; Kolodinsky and Lacasse, 2021). This perception is reinforced by evidence that higher-income households are more inclined to try CBD-infused beverages (Staples, 2024). For the wine industry, this alignment is strategically significant: the premium positioning of CBD-infused wines resonates with the established demographic profile of wine consumers, who are typically affluent and highly educated (Ghvanidze et al., 2017; Jones, 2015). Thus, CBD-infused variants not only reinforce wine's association with exclusivity and sophistication but may also provide a pathway for extending the industry's appeal within the broader wellness-oriented premium market.

Our findings show that men are more likely than women to consume wine and cannabis together, highlighting the need for gender-specific strategies in product innovation and public health messaging. The industry could respond with THC-infused, alcohol-free wines for male consumers seeking euphoria and relaxation while minimizing the risks associated with combining alcohol and cannabis.

These consumption patterns also raise public health concerns. Younger men appear more prone to risky simultaneous use, making them a key audience for targeted awareness campaigns. Messaging that highlights the dangers of simultaneous use and promotes moderation can help reduce harms. For the wine industry, aligning innovation with responsible communication addresses consumer demand while reinforcing wine's image as a socially acceptable, culturally embedded product.

In sum, our findings suggest that the wine industry can use cannabis-infused innovations to meet diverse consumption contexts: THC-infused wines for social occasions and CBD-infused wines for wellness-oriented use. This segmentation addresses differing motives and declining wine interest among younger consumers, but regulatory complexity demands caution – producers should obtain legal guidance before commercialization.

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, it lacks detailed information on the timing and quantities of wine and cannabis consumed, which limits the precision with which complementarity can be assessed. Second, the sample size was relatively small and not fully representative of German consumers. Third, the use of an online survey may have introduced self-selection bias. For these reasons, the findings should be interpreted with caution and should not be generalized to the entire population.

Despite these limitations, the framework developed and tested in this study has broader relevance and may be applied to other high-income wine markets where cannabis policies are evolving. Future research should rely on larger and more diverse samples to validate these findings and to further examine how cultural norms and regulatory contexts shape simultaneous wine–cannabis consumption.

Germany's recent legalization of recreational cannabis also highlights the need for longitudinal research. Following consumers over time would make it possible to track shifts in consumption patterns, motives and the balance between substitution and complementarity. Such work could also shed light on changing perceptions of wine and cannabis after legalization and help guide both industry strategy and public health responses (Turna et al., 2022).

The research study procedure was performed per the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, 2013). All participants gave written informed consent to participate in the study. The Internal Review Board of Geisenheim University approved the study protocol and written consent procedure.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.