Coffee good to the last puff

By chillinwill · Mar 15, 2010 · ·
  1. chillinwill
    This coffee really sucks.

    A nutty Harvard professor has put a jolt in the java trade with a strange new inhalable espresso -- allowing caffeine fiends to breathe in their morning cup of joe.

    "That's what I do with all of my food anyway," said Esther Green, a tourist from Toronto who sampled Le Whif yesterday at Dylan's Candy Bar on the Upper East Side.

    The coffee hits consist of powder inside lipstick-like containers that are pulled open, inserted in the mouth and inhaled.

    The sticks are sold individually for $3 or in boxes of three for $8 -- and each stick delivers 100 milligrams of caffeine, the equivalent of a cup of espresso.

    A whiffer can get up to nine hits from an individual stick, depending on how hard they inhale.

    But it's not everyone's cup of tea.

    "That's not a child's flavor," Green said, after taking a generous "drag."

    "It's interesting. On the espresso side. I don't know. I need some mocha."

    Dylan's -- the city's sole purveyor of the kooky coffee -- sold out of 108 individual servings and 93 three-packs in a matter of hours during Thursday's unveiling.

    They're restocking a limited supply on Wednesday and they hope to fill the shelves again toward the end of the month. Dylan's still has inhalable versions of chocolate in stock.

    A gourmet market in Cambridge, Mass., is the only place in the United States to buy Le Whif.

    "Here's a customer right here for you," Green said, offering her son Jacob a puff of powdered chocolate.

    "I don't know," he said, after trying it. "It's like if you bent over a bowl of chocolate shavings and breathed in."

    The bizarre brew was concocted in a Paris lab by Harvard professor David Edwards and chef Thierry Marx.

    Edwards, a biological engineer, designed the airborne coffee and food particles to be too large to enter the lungs.

    Instead, they land on the tongue and cheeks, giving the taste, and kick, of coffee without the cup.

    "It's less than one calorie a puff, so you can taste the chocolate without the calories," said Dylan's spokeswoman, Jordan Kerr.

    March 13, 2010
    NY Post

    Share This Article


  1. Nature Boy
    Utterly useless. SWIM drinks coffee for the taste, not the caffeine. Even if he loads up a triple espresso, the effects of the caffeine last no longer than half an hour and then he gets drowsy. He can think of far better things to use as a stimulant.
  2. Coconut
    Where's the outrage?

    "New Inhalable Drug Which Mimics Crack Cocaine Comes in Coffee and Chocolate Forms to Appeal to Children"

    Maybe I'll write a facetious - but superficially sincere - article and try to get it published in some rag.
  3. EscapeDummy
    Coconut, please do. That would be fantastic.
  4. BloodyMuffin
    well now... while the chocolate one could be kind of funny as a breath freshener, the coffee one seems useless. as nature boy pointed out, i drink my coffee because it tastes good. dont get me wrong, i love caffeine, i couldnt get up in the morning without it, but this is not the optimal method of delivery. why dont they just go out, buy some pure caffeine, and snort it like a good druggie... its essentially the same concept. also, really? three bucks a pop? i can get a big ass cup of coffee for half that, or i can make one at home for a twentieth... this fad'll end quickly when people realize how stupid it is.
  5. OmniSlash!
    Agreed. Although for us who don't get up in the morning its not the worst idea. I would maybe give it a go to replace my caffeine pills, although they work just fine for about half the price, maybe less.
  6. junkfuck
    Heres a great way to get american politicians to consider banning caffeine....

    I'm sure from their logic 'if caffeine can be quick released by mouth, what is stopping the average american from developing an ingenious way to inhale 100 mgs of caffeine into the lungs causing an immediate energy boost? What if people started snorting or smoking caffeine, or even worse yet, a delivery system like e-cigarettes!!! This would surely cause much harm to society... We need to take this of the shelves to 'protect' our citizens! Lets make it ILLEGAL!!!'

    The fact is, this logic is pretty close to reality. Caffeine is not important enough of a substance to medical science to justify keeping it legal. Sure caffeine might still be legal in coffee, tea, some sodas... but you might never see USP grade caffeine powder, energy drinks, any fancy caffeine delivery system, double-shot espressos, or even sodas like 'mountain dew. Caffeine tablets would surely be regulated, if it were scheduled properly, it would probably be a schedule II medication, high potential for abuse, high risk for dependency, accepted medical value, but the harm from its existence in general society is too great to warrant quantities greater than 100mg's sold over the counter. Suddenly soda companies would require DEA licences to manufacture most of our traditional sodas, especially mountain dew, and 2 liters might disappear all together.

    All and all I think this is an ingenious invention for people who want to lose weight, however, its a horrible invention looking at it from the perspective of the climate of our political world. Drug regulations are going the way of all good things, out of desperation our overly conservative legislature's are fighting as hard as they can to make anything illegal they can, simply because they feel they are 'doing their job' of protecting the common citizen. Everyone knows drugs will eventually be legalized because trying to stop people from doing drugs would be like trying to stop people from communicating with each other. Okay first they might ban talking, so everyone will text, they ban that so people will IM... They will keep banning everything until they realize that they can't stop humans from communicating with one another... Just like drugs. Not everyone can operate sober. Thats why we are giving kids WAY better drugs than caffeine for ADHD. Truly ADHD people require medication in order to function in society PERIOD. They need to 'get high' to survive.

    In swim's opinion he would love to be able to walk to walgreens and pick up a bottle of adderall for his ADHD. Swim would rather be the one to decide if he will become an abuser, or if he would use responsibly for his need, rather than these decisions being made by someone who knows little to nothing about swims need.

    I, personally, believe people should be left to their own devices. I suppose perscriptions should be required, however, drop the quantity limits, drop the bull about abuse liability, because to be honest, while swim might bust up and snort his adderall every once in a while, he might even feel tempted to binge, he would certainly be responsible enough to taper down and get back on his normal dose for his need. Swim shouldn't have to go without his medication simply because he decided to exercise a freedom he should have anyway. I also know many people would abuse their medications until they died. Many rockstars and other famous people seem to do this all the time. The reality is, however, if drugs were legal, most people probably wouldn't abuse any particular class of drug. Most people would be concerned with safety, amphetamines, opiates, they kill people all the time. Most people who would do drugs would make habit of the safest thing they prefer, for about half of us, that would probably be pot.

    These sorts of things are very dangerous for our liberties as of right now... America might not make caffeine illegal over dry espresso things, but imagine how many white collar people around the world would suddenly become addicted to, abuse, and die from caffeine if say for example, it were delivered in the same way e-cigs deliver nicotine. If I were a 6am-10pm coffee fanatic like most of our working world, certainly having a device that would provide an instant single puff of energy as needed, would appeal greatly to me. The health problems, as one could imagine: huge rise in heart disease, desensitization to drug abuse, overdoses, deaths, and all other problems relating to immediate action stimulants taken 10 times a daily for YEARS. The human body was not necessarily designed to 'inhale' fine chemicals. Doing so several times a day would probably kill someone 20-30 years sooner than oral consumption. THESE FACTS are QUITE ENOUGH for the governments of earth to consider and possibly successfully render caffeine illegal.

    Shit why is amphetamine illegal if caffeine is legal. People use caffeine simply because amphetamines and cocaine among others are illegal. Certainly the fact that 10 milligrams of amphetamine will STIMULATE someone to roughly the equivalent degree as 100-300 milligrams of caffeine, and that 10 mg's of amphetamine is considered relatively safe, 100-300 mgs of caffeine are considered risky to moderately dangerous, and BELIEVE IT OR NOT, the EXACT same potential for abuse. Amphetamine would significantly appeal to just about anyone who 'abuses' caffeine.

    Swim happens to be lucky, he has an RX, but for those who don't qualify... Why the hell are we letting people consume risky, if not downright dangerous doses of caffeine, to get the same thing 10 mgs of speed would give safely, and the effects would be significantly more tolerable too. Tylenol doesn't work for much of anything really, yet we hear about people having liver problems from it all the time... It would take a shitload of tylenol to equal the analgesic effects of codeine, make codeine legal, people would take that, in much safer doses, to produce the same effect, therefore SAFER.

    Any medication that is sold over the counter is a crock of government bull for the most part. Diphenhydrame will be legal forever, why? It certainly can and is abused, but the negative side effects are prevalent enough to deter 95% of the population from abusing it. If the OTC med 'creates a high' it certainly produces undesired effects. Amphetamine is widely perscribed, where methamphetamine, not so much. Meth has been shown to have less negative side effects compared to amphetamine, yet as 'the most powerful' stimulant, it is dosed in 5 mg max units to deter abuse. This makes big brother happy, why? Because nobody would snort 200 mgs of shit to get 5 mgs of meth, and while some might extract it, 90% of people probably wouldn't ever know how, yet they will take 5 pills of desoxyn to obtain a therapeutic effect when they could have just made desoxyn 30's... But the chance of a few people snorting 30 mgs of meth seems too risky to the government to certify.

    I do not envy the next couple of generations of kids. Our world governments certainly aren't done running us all into the ground as far as drugs are concerned, it will only get worse before it gets better, sure pot and opium might be legalized within the next 30 years, a million other things we have today, will be illegal. In the United States, the majority of our citizens who support legal cannabis are in grave danger, as we speak, of never seeing their dream fully realized. As a general rule of thumb, republicans normally hate drugs, and democrats normally share a similar opinion to myself. The democrats in the U.S. are at risk of losing majority senate vote, and their seat of power in the government. It is a fact that conservatives have brought the U.S. into our current chaos. Progressives aren't going to be able fix these problems 8 years of bush created, in 2 years. Why should we risk progressive ideas (forward open-minded thinking) in return for conservative ideas ('the way its always been done', closed-minded, regressive thinking)? I believe progress is HUGELY important. Maybe democrats shouldn't have the power, but neither should republicans. We are in yet another era reminiscent of 'federalists' v.s. 'anitfederalists'. Such are the ails of a 2 party dominant system. Smarter people who ACTUALLY SHOULD be in charge are normally independents. Republicans hate forward momentum. Democrats love it. Sadly those who share bi-partisan beliefs use the major party that they identify most closely to as a primary basis for their candidate selection.

    Sorry for the length of this post, however, I figured someone needed to say it somewhere at some point.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!