
Albertans drinking way less booze than they used to, lead the country in cannabis sales
It's been well documented by now that Canadians are drinking less than they used to, but no other province has seen a greater reduction than Alberta.
You know those giant bottles of vodka you can get at Costco? The 4.5-litre ones? That's how much less booze the average Albertan drank last year, compared to how much they drank in 2008.
Put another way: 107 fewer beers, per person, per year.
Back at its peak in 2008, Alberta led all provinces in drinking, with 9.7 litres of pure alcohol consumed per person aged 15 and over.
It has since relinquished that title to Newfoundland and Labrador, which last year led the country at 8.3 litres per person.
Alberta rang in at 7.6 litres per person last year, a decline of 1.9 litres from its peak consumption. That ties it with Saskatchewan for the largest decline from peak in the two decades' worth of data tracked by Statistics Canada.
(You might be wondering: Why is age 15 used for the per-capita calculation, instead of 18, the legal drinking age? Statistics Canada has adopted this cutoff as it's the standard used internationally for per-capita alcohol sales.)
Sky-high cannabis sales
At the same time, cannabis sales in Alberta have been on the rise. They've grown in every year that Statistics Canada has tracked this data.
Albertans led the country in legal cannabis consumption by a substantial margin last year, with an average of $248 spent per person of legal age to buy it.
The next closest province was Saskatchewan, at $205.
Quebec saw the least in cannabis sales, at just $96 per person.
It might seem easy to connect the dots here and assume Albertans are drinking less because they're consuming more cannabis instead, but it's not quite so simple to draw a one-to-one connection between the two trends, says Michael Armstrong, a professor at Brock University's Goodman School of Business, whose research has focused on this topic.
Looking at the big-picture numbers, he says there "was no obvious, sudden drop" in alcohol consumption once cannabis was legalized in Canada in 2018.
"No large number of Canadians suddenly said, 'Hey, I'm going to start smoking joints instead of drinking beer,'" Armstrong said.
He believes Alberta's sky-high sales of legal weed is more related to the sheer number of stores in this province.
"Alberta was ahead of most other provinces on store openings and also therefore on sales," Armstrong said.
"For a while in 2019-2020, it had more stores than all other provinces combined. It currently has the third-largest number of stores per capita, only slightly behind Manitoba and Saskatchewan; it has about 12 times the retail density of Quebec."
Armstrong believes the decline in drinking is more complicated. Because alcohol is much more of an established industry, he says it's hard to pinpoint one dominant factor behind the decline.
Rather, he says, there are "many individual factors" at play.
Culture, health and non-alcoholic options
Many of these factors are not unique to Alberta.
Young adults, in particular, appear to be drinking less, in part due to the cost of alcohol and in part due to shifting norms in drinking culture.
Then there's the recently revamped guidance from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, which set much lower thresholds for low-risk drinking than had previously been advised by Health Canada.
There was a spike in alcohol consumption during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic but, ever since, drinking has generally been on the decline.
This has coincided with the wider availability of non-alcoholic beers, wines and "mocktails." A recent report from NielsenIQ, a consumer intelligence firm, found annual sales of non-alcoholic beverages in Canada had surged to $199 million last year year, up from $137 million two years prior.
"As consumers increasingly prioritize wellness and moderation in their daily routines, non-alcohol products have become an appealing choice for those seeking to incorporate it into their alcohol-consumption habits," the report reads.
That's certainly been a factor for Nikki Guilcher, a Calgary resident who says the quality and diversity of non-alcoholic options has greatly improved.
She says both she and her husband have been drinking less traditional beer and more non-alcoholic beer lately, and it's a trend among a group of women she hikes with, as well.
"At the top of the mountain we'll have a drink and usually at least half of us have got a non-alcoholic beer," Guilcher said.
It's a similar story for Calgarian Kent Vuong.
"I'm turning 41 pretty soon and I don't know if it's just an age thing but ... I feel a lot more bloated and it gives me headaches, like after a single drink," he said.
"And when I'm out socializing with people, I'll just trend toward having a non-alcoholic beer."
Price and future consumers
The decline in drinking in Alberta long predates the rise in non-alcoholic options, however.
Apart from the pandemic bump in 2020, alcohol consumption has been generally trending downward since its peak in 2008.
That's also the year Alberta introduced a mandatory minimum drink price at licensed establishments.
The prices may seem quaint by today's standards, but the 2008 law set a floor of $1.75 for a five-ounce glass of wine, $2.75 for a regular-sized can of beer and $3.20 for a pint.
Consumers have continued to pay more and more for booze ever since, which Armstrong noted is not the case for cannabis, which began being sold legally in late 2018.
From December 2018 to May 2025, he said, alcohol prices in Alberta have grown by 14 per cent, while cannabis prices have actually declined by 38 per cent.
Today, he said, "the price of an intoxicated evening" on cannabis is far lower than what it would cost to get a similar buzz from alcohol.
And while he said there's no strong evidence to date that people are switching from alcohol to cannabis in large numbers, Armstrong wonders if that will start to change in the future, as children who grew up with both substances being legal enter into adulthood.
"I think what we will see is not a big jump of current drinkers switching to cannabis, as much as future consumers choosing cannabis who otherwise would have chosen alcohol," he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CTV News
5 minutes ago
- CTV News
B.C. landlord must pay evicted tenants $65K, court rules
A B.C. landlord who sold a rental property failed to convince a judge the buyers – who never moved into the home – should be on the hook for compensating wrongfully evicted tenants, according to a recent decision. Justice Anita Chan ruled on the dispute Friday, upholding a decision of B.C.'s Residential Tenancy Branch awarding $65,000 in compensation to the former renters. In 2022, Mohan Sull, the landlord, was renting the North Vancouver home to Thomas and Rozette Trevitt for $5,650 a month, the court heard. Sull entered into an agreement to sell the property and served the tenants with a two-month notice of eviction because 'the buyers intended to occupy the property,' according to the decision. But the buyers never moved in. 'The buyers undertook extensive renovations. The city in March 2023 issued a stop-work order. The buyers did not obtain the proper permits until May 2024. I understand the property is still fully gutted with no one residing there currently,' the judge wrote. The ousted renters successfully challenged their eviction on the grounds that the 'stated purpose of the notice to end tenancy was not accomplished,' the decision said. Buyers were not 'purchasers;' sale was conditional Sull was seeking a judicial review of the arbitrator's decision on a number of grounds, including that it was the buyers – not him – who should have to pay. 'The buyers had possession of the property and did not occupy it. The landlord argues he has no control over the property and he ought not to be held liable,' Chan wrote, summarizing the crux of Sull's submission on that point. The judge's decision explained that the arbitrator had already considered and dismissed this argument, finding that the buyers did not 'meet the definition of purchasers' in the Residential Tenancy Act. The legislation defines a purchaser as someone who has agreed to purchase 'at least half of the full reversionary interest in the property' and the arbitrator found that criteria was not met in this case, according to the judgment. That was because the deal was a five-year 'option to purchase' agreement. The buyers put down $100,000 and agreed to pay a monthly interest fee of $5,800 for the next five years or until they decided to complete the purchase of the property. 'If there was an agreement to terminate the contract, the down payment and any additional payments were to be returned to the buyers,' the decision explained. Even if the buyers were 'purchasers,' the arbitrator found the landlord was not legally entitled to evict the tenants. A landlord who has sold a property can end a tenancy but only if 'all the conditions on which the sale depends have been satisfied,' the decision explained. Because of the nature of the agreement, the sale of the property was 'at its core' a conditional sale unless and until the option to purchase was exercised. 'The arbitrator emphasized that the wrongful act was not that the buyers had not occupied the property, but rather that the tenants ought not to have had their tenancy terminated in the first place,' the decision said. The judge agreed on this point. 'The landlord was not entitled to provide the two-month notice to end tenancy, as there was no unconditional sale of the property,' Chan wrote. Unenforceable clause Sull also argued to the arbitrator and again to the judge that the eviction was legal and justified because of a clause written into the lease that read 'tenant and owner both agree to give two full calendar months written notice, when they plan to end the lease.' The problem with that argument, the judge noted, was that it was an 'impermissible opting out of the mandatory provisions of the (Residential Tenancy Act) because 'a landlord cannot end a tenancy by providing two months' written notice for any reason.' The legislation lays out specific circumstances in which a landlord can end a tenancy and leases which 'attempt to avoid or contract out' of those legal obligations are 'of no effect,' according to the decision. 'The arbitrator found that (the) clause was an attempt by the parties to increase the circumstances by which the landlord can end the tenancy,' the decision said. The judge agreed with this assessment and found the arbitrator's decision, as a whole, was reasonable in the circumstances. Wrongfully evicted tenants in circumstances like these are generally entitled to compensation equivalent to 12 months of rent. In this case, that worked out to $67,800 but the judge noted an award of $65,000 as the maximum allowable for a dispute settled by the Residential Tenancy Branch.


Globe and Mail
5 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Seven stocks with growing dividends that will benefit from rate cuts
What are we looking for? Canadian dividend-growing stocks that will benefit from future Bank of Canada interest rate cuts. The screen After holding its policy rate steady at 2.75 per cent in June, the Bank of Canada may be compelled to cut rates later this year. With inflation cooling and economic growth under threat from U.S. tariffs, some major banks such as Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD-T) are forecasting two rate cuts by year end. Falling rates tend to boost demand for income-generating assets, making this an opportune moment to revisit dividend stocks. Lower bond yields push investors toward equities that pay steady and growing dividends. Using FactSet's screening tool, I identified Canadian dividend growers with a proven track record by applying the following criteria: The seven companies that passed were ranked by their dividend yield. What we found CT Real Estate Investment Trust (CRT-UN-T), a Canadian REIT with a portfolio of essential properties that includes Canadian Tire, ranked first on our screen with a 6-per-cent dividend yield and a conservative payout ratio of 49.6 per cent. Its properties maintain a strong occupancy rate above 99 per cent, adding a layer of predictability to its robust cash flows. Recent financing moves, including a $200‑million debenture offering, help support further development initiatives. With long-term leases, minimal tenant turnover risk and rates poised to drop, CT REIT is well positioned as a dependable income name in a lower-rate environment. Investors should stay tuned for further updates on CT REIT's earnings call on Aug. 6. Cogeco Communications Inc. (CCA-T), a telecom and broadband provider that operates across Canada and the United States, offers a 5.6-per-cent dividend yield and low payout ratio of 43.4 per cent. Despite reporting a recent 2.7-per-cent decline in quarterly revenues year-over-year, the company delivered a 63-per-cent surge in free cash flow driven by lower capital expenditures and restructuring costs. That said, Cogeco's core business is cable, which is in a long-term decline. It's a steady, income-focused name that may appeal more to conservative investors in a falling-rate environment. The information in this article is not investment advice. The author assumes no liability for any consequence relating directly or indirectly to any action or inaction taken based on the information contained above. Arjun Deiva, CFA, is an MBA Candidate at the University of California, Berkeley, Haas School of Business.


Globe and Mail
5 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Oncolytics Biotech® Regains Compliance with Nasdaq Trading Rules
SAN DIEGO and CALGARY, AB, July 22, 2025 /CNW/ -- Oncolytics Biotech ® Inc. (Nasdaq: ONCY) (TSX: ONC) ("Oncolytics" or the "Company"), a leading clinical-stage company specializing in immunotherapy for oncology, received a formal letter (the "Compliance Notice") from the Listing Qualifications Department of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC ("Nasdaq") dated July 22, 2025 informing the Company that it has regained compliance with the minimum bid price requirement under Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) (the "Minimum Bid Price Requirement"). The Company is now in compliance with all Nasdaq listing standards, and its common shares will continue to trade on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker "ONCY."