Marijuana on the Verge of Mainstream Acceptance

By Ben Smith

On January 21, 2010, a marijuana advocacy group based in Denver, Colorado, held a news conference in front of a local Starbucks. The group, called SAFER (Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation), called the news conference so that they could highlight Starbucks’ apparent support of an anti-drug organization, the Colorado Drug Investigators Association.

SAFER’s evidence for Starbucks’ involvement with the CDIA was the fact that on the CDIA web site, the Starbucks logo (along with logos for several other companies) was displayed as a sponsor. The response that SAFER was calling for? A boycott. Boycotts, it seems, are part of the American right to self-expression. Abstaining from a purchase in order to make a moral point is a tactic that activist groups across the nation employ, and regardless of its efficacy, the boycott is something no retailer wants.

Starbucks quickly issued a statement, and its contents were far from standard public relations boilerplate. Their statement said, in part, "We have a tremendous amount of respect for the men and women of local law enforcement. However, we have not sponsored this particular organization through our foundation. It is up to the discretion of our local teams to support those groups that are relevant in their neighborhoods. Our stores often support organizations in their community by donating coffee for their events."

Translation? Starbucks isn’t picking a side in this fight. The most that a local Starbucks may have done is provide free coffee. The Starbucks corporation is not in support of marijuana legalization, but they aren’t necessarily against it, either. For a major corporation like Starbucks to issue a statement like this is indicative of a sea change in American culture. A statement from Starbucks that essentially says "We’re neutral" has a larger significance beyond the fight between pro-drug and anti-drug groups.

Large corporations, and especially Starbucks, cultivate their public image carefully. The last thing they want is to offend consumers to the point where they are unwilling to remain loyal customers. Driving away customers means less money coming in, and less money coming in spells out death for the company if the trend continues. Starbucks would not take a firm middle ground if they felt it would hurt their business or their brand.

A cultural shift has been occurring over the past several decades, and the pro-drug movement is building up steam to change the laws on the books in several states. In fact, President Obama said several times on the campaign trail that he intends to end Drug Enforcement Agency raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. Whether you are for marijuana legalization or against it, change is clearly in the air.

Whether Starbucks was afraid of a financial impact in the pro-marijuana Denver area or simply taking advantage of the opportunity to make its position clear, SAFER has apparently taken the Starbucks statement to heart. On SAFER’s web site, they are now renouncing their earlier calls for a boycott of Starbucks. The web site for the Colorado Drug Investigators Association, however, is currently offline. According to reports, the site featured a skull and crossbones logo with some text reading, "Death On Drugs." Perhaps their proclamation was a little premature.