A 2025 German survey of wine-drinking cannabis users finds that people who use cannabis for relaxation or pleasure tend to use it more frequently and alone, while those motivated by social connection use it less often and in group settings. The cross-sectional design means these associations cannot tell us which came first: the motivation or the habit.

Germany legalized recreational cannabis in April 2024, creating an urgent need for baseline data on who uses cannabis and why. For clinicians, public health officials, and policymakers navigating this transition, understanding the motivational landscape of use is essential for designing targeted harm reduction programs and crafting effective public health messaging. This study arrives at precisely the moment when such data is needed most, even if its scope is narrower than it might first appear.

Cannabis use in Germany is undergoing a fundamental transformation following the April 2024 legalization of recreational possession and cultivation. Understanding why adults use cannabis, and how those motivations relate to consumption patterns, is a prerequisite for designing effective public health programs and clinical screening tools. This study draws on the Marijuana Motives Measure, a validated four-factor instrument originally developed in the alcohol motivation literature, to characterize cannabis motivations along two axes: positive versus negative reinforcement, and self-focused versus other-focused orientation. The researchers embedded this framework within Stebbins’ casual leisure theory, which distinguishes between activities pursued for immediate intrinsic reward and those with deeper social or developmental functions.

The central finding is that self-focused motivations, particularly relaxation and hedonic pleasure (enhancement), are associated with more frequent cannabis use and consumption in private or solitary settings. By contrast, other-focused motivations, especially social bonding and sociable conversation, are associated with less frequent, occasional use situated in group environments. The study also examined variation across gender, age, education, occupation, and generational cohort, extending the sociodemographic scope of prior cannabis motivation research. However, the sample is restricted to wine-drinking adults aged 20 to 60, a niche convenience sample that limits generalizability. The cross-sectional design precludes any causal interpretation. The authors acknowledge that longitudinal studies with representative samples and harm outcome measures are needed to determine whether these motivational profiles predict clinically meaningful trajectories.

Self-Focused or Social? A German Study Maps Motivations to Cannabis Use Patterns

When researchers asked German wine drinkers why they use cannabis, the answers fell into two distinct camps, and those answers predicted not just how often they used it, but whether they were alone on the couch or out with friends. The patterns make intuitive sense, but the science behind them is more complicated than it first appears. To the study’s credit, it does something genuinely useful: it brings the well-established Marijuana Motives Measure into a new cultural and regulatory context at a moment when Germany is just beginning to grapple with what legal cannabis use actually looks like across its population. The distinction between self-focused motives (relaxation, pleasure) and other-focused motives (social bonding, conversation) is not new, but applying it systematically in a country transitioning from prohibition to legalization adds real value to the international conversation. The broader sociodemographic lens, looking beyond just gender and age to education, occupation, and generational cohort, is a welcome expansion that most prior studies in this space have not attempted.

The central methodological problem, however, limits what any of us can do with these findings. A cross-sectional survey captures a single snapshot, which means we are asking someone why they go to the gym after they have already been going for years. The answer tells you about their current rationalization, not necessarily what got them started, and the motivation and the habit have grown together in ways a single snapshot cannot untangle. We simply cannot know from this design whether relaxation motives lead people to use cannabis more often, or whether frequent users come to describe their use in relaxation terms because that is what the experience has become. Equally important is the sample restriction. Surveying only wine drinkers who also use cannabis and then describing patterns of “German cannabis use” is like surveying Michelin-starred restaurant patrons about their food preferences and then calling the results a portrait of “German eating habits.” The findings tell us something real, but only about a very specific slice of the pie. The absence of any harm, dependence, or wellbeing outcomes further constrains the clinical relevance: we learn how people describe their motives, but not whether those motives track with outcomes that matter in a consulting room.

In my practice, I find motivational profiling genuinely useful for conversations with patients about their cannabis use. A patient who describes using cannabis primarily alone to unwind every night deserves a different clinical conversation than someone who uses it occasionally at a dinner party. But to move from descriptive pattern to clinical action, we need studies that follow people forward over time, validate the instruments in the language and culture being studied, and measure the outcomes that actually determine whether a pattern of use becomes a problem. This German study offers a timely and theoretically grounded look at why adults use cannabis and how those motivations connect to real-world use patterns, at least among a very specific subpopulation. What it gives us is a well-framed starting point and a clear research agenda: validate these patterns in a representative German population, follow them over time, and measure what matters clinically. Motivational profiling is a promising lens for differentiating cannabis use patterns, but population-specific validation, longitudinal design, and harm outcome measurement are prerequisites before motivational categories can guide clinical or policy action.

This study sits at an early, exploratory stage in the research arc for German cannabis motivation research. It is best understood as a hypothesis-generating study that applies a well-validated North American framework to a new population at a new regulatory moment. The findings are consistent with prior work by Simons and colleagues (1998) and Bonn-Miller and colleagues (2007) showing that enhancement and coping motives track with more frequent cannabis use, while social motives track with lower-frequency consumption. The cross-cultural replication is encouraging, but the niche sample means that replication in a representative German cohort is essential before any population-level conclusions can be drawn.

From a clinical standpoint, no pharmacological or safety data are presented, and no harm outcomes are measured, so the study offers no direct guidance on drug interactions, dosing, or risk stratification. However, prior literature suggests that enhancement and coping motivations are more strongly associated with cannabis use disorder risk than social motivations. Clinicians working with patients who describe frequent, solitary use for relaxation or stress management should consider screening for early signs of problematic use patterns, particularly when cannabis is being used to cope with underlying anxiety or mood symptoms. The one actionable takeaway: ask patients not just whether they use cannabis, but why and with whom, as the motivational context may reveal more about risk than frequency alone.

This is an original cross-sectional survey study published in a sociology of leisure journal, not a clinical trial, systematic review, or epidemiological cohort study. It occupies a relatively low position in the evidence hierarchy for causal inference. The single most important constraint on interpretation is that cross-sectional data cannot establish whether motivational profiles drive use patterns or whether use patterns shape how individuals retrospectively characterize their motivations.

The findings are broadly consistent with the existing North American literature on cannabis use motivations. Simons and colleagues (1998) established the five-factor Marijuana Motives Measure and demonstrated that enhancement and coping motives are the strongest predictors of use frequency, while Bonn-Miller and colleagues (2007) confirmed that coping motives in particular track with more frequent use among young adults. This German study extends rather than challenges those findings by replicating the self-versus-other motivational distinction in a European cultural context and within a casual leisure theoretical framework. It adds sociodemographic breadth but does not yet offer the longitudinal or harm-outcome data that would meaningfully advance the field beyond its current descriptive stage.

The most consequential analytic choice in this study is the restriction of the sample to wine drinkers who also use cannabis. Had the researchers recruited a broader, population-representative sample of all cannabis users in Germany, the distribution of motivational profiles could have differed substantially. Wine drinkers may be more socially oriented, more affluent, or more health-conscious than the general cannabis-using population, and these characteristics could systematically influence how they report their motivations. A parallel analysis comparing wine-drinking and non-wine-drinking cannabis users would have provided a direct test of whether the sample restriction distorts the motivational landscape. Additionally, had the study used a longitudinal or ecological momentary assessment design instead of a single cross-sectional snapshot, the direction of association between motives and behavior could have been partially disentangled.

The most likely overinterpretation is that self-focused motives cause more frequent cannabis use, or that social cannabis use is inherently safe. This study shows associations only; the cross-sectional design cannot establish which came first. Lower frequency of use among socially motivated users does not mean absence of risk. Equally important, readers should not treat these findings as representative of German cannabis users broadly. The sample includes only wine-drinking adults aged 20 to 60, a specific subpopulation whose motivational profiles may differ meaningfully from those of cannabis users who do not drink wine, who are younger than 20, or who are older than 60. Finally, the study is descriptive and sociological; it does not evaluate the health consequences of legalization and should not be cited in support of, or opposition to, cannabis policy.

This study provides a timely, theoretically grounded snapshot of cannabis use motivations among a specific German subpopulation at the moment of legalization. It confirms that self-focused motives track with more frequent, private use and social motives track with occasional, group use. It does not establish causal relationships, measure harm outcomes, or generalize beyond wine-drinking adults. It is best understood as a well-framed hypothesis-generating study that defines the research agenda rather than resolving clinical questions.

Does this study show that using cannabis alone is more dangerous than using it with friends?

No. The study found that people who use cannabis primarily for personal relaxation tend to use it more often and in solitary settings, while socially motivated users tend to use it less often and with others. However, the study did not measure harm, dependence, or any health outcomes, so it cannot tell us whether one pattern is riskier than the other. Prior research does suggest that coping and enhancement motives carry higher risk for problematic use, but this particular study does not test that question directly.

Can I apply these findings to myself if I use cannabis but do not drink wine?

The study specifically surveyed German adults who drink wine and also use cannabis. People who use cannabis but do not drink wine may have different motivational profiles, and the study’s findings may not apply to them. The restriction was part of the researchers’ broader project on wine and cannabis co-consumption and limits how broadly the results can be extended.

Does this study support or oppose cannabis legalization?

Neither. This is a descriptive, sociological study that characterizes why certain adults use cannabis and how those motivations relate to use patterns. It does not evaluate the health, economic, or social consequences of legalization. The timing of the study, conducted just before Germany’s April 2024 legalization, makes it a useful baseline, but it is not designed to be cited as evidence for or against any particular policy position.

Have thoughts on this? Share it: