Coral Reefer E-Cigs & Paraphernalia?

[FunkHouse9]

Jimmy Buffett knows a golden Margaritaville opportunity when he smells one

Jimmy Buffett knows one thing about marijuana users — there are some folks who simply cannot roll a good joint. The Margaritaville mega-mogul also knows a business opportunity when he smells one.

It could be why in January, Margaritaville Enterprises LLC tried to trademark the term “Coral Reefer,” the name of Buffett’s back-up band.

If granted, the trademark would essentially give the “Cheeseburger in Paradise” singer a license to print (even more) money, through sales of branded products such as electronic cigarettes, electronic cigarette refill cartridges sold empty; smoking pipes, smoking pipe cleaners, smoking pipe racks, smokeless cigarette vaporizers, lighters and ashtrays.

Read the full article

[Dr.Corona]

A bit late to the party Funky. If you check the "Wow" thread that was essentially the topic. On SECOND thought, don't check it out. To say the thread got out of control is an understatement!
Best keep this topic here in the aptly titled thread!

[krusin1]

Okay.... call me an eternal optimist, but...

When I heard about Jimmy trying to trademark "Coral Reefer" I didn't think it necessarily meant he was going to produce e-cigs and such. My guess was he simply needed to get control of that phrase/title before somebody else DID take it to produce some type of smoke/vapor product.

I do that with website domains. We buy the domain we intend to use, but we ALSO buy pretty much every variation on that name just to prevent unsavory characters using our good name for ill purposes.

Just my two cents. I could definitely be wrong.

[Hockey Mon]

A bit late to the party Funky. If you check the "Wow" thread that was essentially the topic. On SECOND thought, don't check it out. To say the thread got out of control is an understatement!
Best keep this topic here in the aptly titled thread!

Well, that was an interesting thread.

[FunkHouse9]

A bit late to the party Funky. If you check the "Wow" thread that was essentially the topic. On SECOND thought, don't check it out. To say the thread got out of control is an understatement!
Best keep this topic here in the aptly titled thread!

You are correct about that. I even posted in that thread. I remember the discussion specifically about the trademarking of the name and how it turned into a large list of all of the things he has trademarked. But, I didn't specifically recall that the E-cig discussion had been the point of the thread. I even browsed the recent post titles to make sure someone else hadn't posted it.

To try to come up with a retroactive defense for posting a duplicate topic, that thread is locked now. Maybe we can restart the discussion if there's anything else to be said about e-cigs (and not each other) that hasn't already been said.

[capnbobby]

Okay.... call me an eternal optimist, but...

When I heard about Jimmy trying to trademark "Coral Reefer" I didn't think it necessarily meant he was going to produce e-cigs and such. My guess was he simply needed to get control of that phrase/title before somebody else DID take it to produce some type of smoke/vapor product.

I do that with website domains. We buy the domain we intend to use, but we ALSO buy pretty much every variation on that name just to prevent unsavory characters using our good name for ill purposes.

Just my two cents. I could definitely be wrong.

I hope you're right. If that's the case, it strikes me as a prudent and reasonable thing to do. My fear is that Coral Reefer is being trademarked to launch a line of tobacco/drug related products. If that's the case, I'm going to be very disappointed. We'll see . . .

Cap'n Bobby

[Bicycle Bill]

Okay.... call me an eternal optimist, but...

When I heard about Jimmy trying to trademark "Coral Reefer" I didn't think it necessarily meant he was going to produce e-cigs and such. My guess was he simply needed to get control of that phrase/title before somebody else DID take it to produce some type of smoke/vapor product.

I do that with website domains. We buy the domain we intend to use, but we ALSO buy pretty much every variation on that name just to prevent unsavory characters using our good name for ill purposes.

Just my two cents. I could definitely be wrong.

I hope you're right. If that's the case, it strikes me as a prudent and reasonable thing to do. My fear is that Coral Reefer is being trademarked to launch a line of tobacco/drug related products. If that's the case, I'm going to be very disappointed. We'll see . . .

Cap'n Bobby

I agree with you, Cap'n, but the businessman in me also sees the way the winds are blowing — and Bubba's not blind to it either — so I can also see krusin's point as well.  Marijuana appears to be well on its way to becoming another legal-with-certain-restrictions drug of choice like alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine, so if anybody is going to copyright/potentially make some money off of the term "Coral Reefer" who better than the dude who has been associated with it for the last three decades or more?

-"BB"

[Tiki Torches]

Lock this thread now!!!

[ParrotHead67]

Oh no... here we go again... lol!!!

[krusin1]

Lock this thread now!!!

Actually...... we've been on-topic and civil for nearly a whole page now! I'm kinda proud of my BN buddies.

Carry on!

[jbfins]

In this case, I totally support Jimmy. To me, getting a trademark or other protection for "Coral Reefer" is something he not only should do but is fully 100% entitled to. If he uses it only to protect against someone else from using it, great. If he uses it to get royalties associated with products sold with that name, even better.

But he better make sure that Kitty Litter, Al Vocado and Que Pasa get a certain percentage of Marvin Garden's cut of any money that is made.

[FunkHouse9]

Lock this thread now!!!

Probably better to nip it in the bud.... to use some terminology relevant to the reefer discussion.

[catsway]

We saw "Coral Reef" Little Debbie snack cakes at Walmart yesterday.

[Bicycle Bill]

We saw "Coral Reef" Little Debbie snack cakes at Walmart yesterday.

Why not?  Not that I would know first-hand, but pot smoking supposedly increases the late-night munchies.

In fact, I remember reading a (fiction) book about pot smuggling back in the '70s entitled "Dealing: The Berkeley-to-Boston Forty-Brick Lost-Bag Blues" (by Michael Crichton!!) in which he has the main character predicting that if marijuana ever became legalized it would be because the snack food industry, recognizing the profits to be made, had gotten whole-heartedly behind the proposal.

-"BB"-

[catsway]

As a reformed smoker, I would be disappointed to see an tobacco e-cig out on the market with Jimmy's approval. Smoking is just a bad unhealthy habit.

As far as ganja is concerned, many music industry performers have been involved with the production of new hybrid seeds and growing medical and recreational marijuana, mostly from the rap scene in the West Coast. If Jimmy wants to use his cash to invest in the burgeoning marijuana industry, he has my vote. If I had money like that to invest, I'd be first in line.

We are for the legalization of marijuana, particularly for medicinal purposes. We have Constitutional Amendment 2 on the ballot here in Florida for the November elections. Current polls indicate that the law will pass. A local doctor wanted to prescribe antidepressants for a friend recently. Our friend didn't want to take them due to possible side effects. The doc said, "Well in a couple of years I'll be able to prescribe marijuana for you". Sounds like he was on board with he program.

[Tiki Torches]

As a reformed smoker, I would be disappointed to see an tobacco e-cig out on the market with Jimmy's approval. Smoking is just a bad unhealthy habit.

Is there even such a thing as a tobacco e-cigarette? I know e-cigarettes (or "vaping") have had some backlash but I thought for the most it was supposed to be a safe (or at least safer) alternative to tobacco smoking. That said, the one unpleasant experience I've had with vaping is that someone was using a maple syrup scent in a bar a while back. While that may sound like it would be a pleasing smell, it wasn't. In fact, it irritated the band that was performing that night so much that the person was asked to go outside to smoke their e-cigarette as the aroma was overpowering.

[FunkHouse9]

As a reformed smoker, I would be disappointed to see an tobacco e-cig out on the market with Jimmy's approval. Smoking is just a bad unhealthy habit.

Is there even such a thing as a tobacco e-cigarette? I know e-cigarettes (or "vaping") have had some backlash but I thought for the most it was supposed to be a safe (or at least safer) alternative to tobacco smoking. That said, the one unpleasant experience I've had with vaping is that someone was using a maple syrup scent in a bar a while back. While that may sound like it would be a pleasing smell, it wasn't. In fact, it irritated the band that was performing that night so much that the person was asked to go outside to smoke their e-cigarette as the aroma was overpowering.

I thought vaping was basically just inhaling a scented/flavored mist that had some nicotine mixed in to fulfill the craving. There's no tobacco in them.

I would like to see a tomacco flavored one though.

[RinglingRingling]

Okay.... call me an eternal optimist, but...

When I heard about Jimmy trying to trademark "Coral Reefer" I didn't think it necessarily meant he was going to produce e-cigs and such. My guess was he simply needed to get control of that phrase/title before somebody else DID take it to produce some type of smoke/vapor product.

I do that with website domains. We buy the domain we intend to use, but we ALSO buy pretty much every variation on that name just to prevent unsavory characters using our good name for ill purposes.

Just my two cents. I could definitely be wrong.

I hope you're right. If that's the case, it strikes me as a prudent and reasonable thing to do. My fear is that Coral Reefer is being trademarked to launch a line of tobacco/drug related products. If that's the case, I'm going to be very disappointed. We'll see . . .

Cap'n Bobby

I agree with you, Cap'n, but the businessman in me also sees the way the winds are blowing — and Bubba's not blind to it either — so I can also see krusin's point as well.  Marijuana appears to be well on its way to becoming another legal-with-certain-restrictions drug of choice like alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine, so if anybody is going to copyright/potentially make some money off of the term "Coral Reefer" who better than the dude who has been associated with it for the last three decades or more?

-"BB"

who is regulating caffeine and why would they blaspheme like that?

[PeretHed66]

I would like to see a tomacco flavored one though.

[Bicycle Bill]

Okay.... call me an eternal optimist, but...

When I heard about Jimmy trying to trademark "Coral Reefer" I didn't think it necessarily meant he was going to produce e-cigs and such. My guess was he simply needed to get control of that phrase/title before somebody else DID take it to produce some type of smoke/vapor product.

I do that with website domains. We buy the domain we intend to use, but we ALSO buy pretty much every variation on that name just to prevent unsavory characters using our good name for ill purposes.

Just my two cents. I could definitely be wrong.

I hope you're right. If that's the case, it strikes me as a prudent and reasonable thing to do. My fear is that Coral Reefer is being trademarked to launch a line of tobacco/drug related products. If that's the case, I'm going to be very disappointed. We'll see . . .

Cap'n Bobby

I agree with you, Cap'n, but the businessman in me also sees the way the winds are blowing — and Bubba's not blind to it either — so I can also see krusin's point as well.  Marijuana appears to be well on its way to becoming another legal-with-certain-restrictions drug of choice like alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine, so if anybody is going to copyright/potentially make some money off of the term "Coral Reefer" who better than the dude who has been associated with it for the last three decades or more?

-"BB"

who is regulating caffeine and why would they blaspheme like that?

Historically caffeine has been involved in its share of drug scares and exaggerations in other parts of the world as well as here in the US.  For example, in 1911 the US government seized a quantity of Coca-Cola syrup in Chattanooga, Tennessee, alleging that the caffeine in the drink was "injurious to health".  While the judge eventually ruled in favor of Coca-Cola, two bills were introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1912 to amend the Pure Food and Drug Act, adding caffeine to the list of "habit-forming" and "deleterious" substances, which must be listed on a product's label ... and it still is to this day.

Imams in Mecca banned coffee for Muslims in the early 1500s — although in fairness this was due to the fact that the imams were more fearful of the rise of coffeehouses which quickly became common gathering places with political overtones.  In Australia and New Zealand, regulations specify how much caffeine can be added to cola-type soft drinks and energy drinks; and in Sweden, many grocery stores will not sell energy drinks, the active ingredient of which is generally caffeine, to anyone under the age of 15.  Some religions have officially proscribed caffeine, most notably the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) — although they have softened their stance somewhat, recently issuing a ruling that permits consumption of soft drinks such as Coke and Mountain Dew and even hot chocolate; however, tea and coffee are still verboten.

And in April of 2013, when Michael Taylor (deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the Food and Drug Administration) was asked "Is it possible that FDA would set age restrictions for purchase (of caffeine)?" he responded:

• "We have to be practical; enforcing age restrictions would be challenging.  For me, the more fundamental questions are whether it is appropriate to use foods that may be inherently attractive and accessible to children as the vehicles to deliver the stimulant caffeine, and whether we should place limits on the amount of caffeine in certain products." (emphasis mine)

-"BB"-