"When you go to a gourmet restaurant, you might find yourself asking the sommelier to recommend a fine wine to complement your meal. But now, as more states begin to legalize recreational marijuana use, diners will soon be asking another question: What fine weed will enhance my dining experience?"
"Patrons of Colorado’s Hapa Sushi have already begun asking this important question thanks to the restaurant’s new pot-and-dinner pairing menu. Back in 2009, the restaurant launched a print campaign that encouraged smokers to come eat sushi to satisfy their munchies. And now the chain, with locations in Boulder and Denver, is back on the pro-weed scene, urging locals to toke up and eat up — at the same time."
"The lady will have your finest blunt."
53 comments:
Anorexia treatment facility?
Bong and a blintz?
Sure, but is it GMO-free and vegan?
How about an after dinner cigar? What, you can't smoke in there?
I'm trademarking the name "Weed and Feed."
Sixty Grit .... Good take on the subject.
Funny how resin and tar inhalation from smoking tobacco is noxious and to be forbidden even as "second hand" fumes....but toking mother nature is okay.
Funny how resin and tar inhalation from smoking tobacco is noxious and to be forbidden even as "second hand" fumes....but toking mother nature is okay.
If laws were required to make rational sense, drug prohibition would never have happened in the first place. :)
The whole idea founders on the assumption that you can meld pot smokers and fine dining. Hippies fight the power, man, they don't wash their hair and feet to sit down and dine among the power, man. I mean dude, dine?..dude, dude!
"When you go to a gourmet restaurant, you might find yourself asking the sommelier to recommend a fine wine to complement your meal."
I had a similar experience just today. It was most frustrating because the sommelier refused to make a recommendation and made me make the choice myself.
Well. OK. The gourmet restaurant was Subway and the sommelier was a teenage Indian girl with a loose grip on the English language, but close enough.
The thing is - I hate Subway. I hate it because they make you make all the decisions without giving you the information you need to choose wisely so I haven't visited one in several years.
But I was hungry and there one was and I've been seeing the ads on the wide screen which make the sandwiches look huge and delicious. So in I went.
I had a plan. I could avoid the decision process by simply ordering one of the featured sandwiches I've seen so much of recently.
So I ordered the Philly Cheese Steak. Can I just get one like the one in the picture, I asked. Sure, she said. What kind of bread, she said. What kind of cheese, she said. What kind of trimmings, she said. What kind if condiments, she said.
I was forced to reconstruct the sandwich I had seen on TV from memory. The sommelier was no help at all. I ended up with an edible and filling meal, but it wasn't a Subway Philly Cheese Steak. Not even close. I scarfed it down.
I hate Subway.
Continuing with the food theme ... who knew that one of our own was part of a movement.
Our town has banned e-cigarettes, mainly because they might entice kids to smoke real cigarettes.
For some reason, however, little kids rarely take off in the family car, even though we allow them as passengers.
P.S. I hate Subway, but mainly because our local sammichmakers seem to be deciding whether to make me a sammitch or rob me.
Now I like Subway. Not because the sandwiches are great, but because it's one of the few places you can get fast food that is not fried, and made from some capitalist industrial pseudo food. It's basic simple ingredients and mostly unadulterated ones which you can see right in front of you and choose from. I never feel guilty about eating at Subway. It's fast, simple, healthy and cheap, and that's just what I want on most days.
The e-cigarette bans are perfect proof that these busybody types are all about control and inflicting their personal preferences and pet peeves on others by force. They don't care about the facts or even if the product serves a useful purpose for people. They don't like smoking, and you can't even be allowed to fake it. The same with stick figures of guns, or assault weapons carved from peanut butter sandwiches. A record cold wave is proof of global warming, and wildlife slaughtering wind farms are good for the environment.
It is their world, after all, and the rest of us are just unfortunately living in it, and we should be apologizing for that.
You only use weed after eating food. Not during. How rude.
(1) I'm with Rabel. Went to Subway once and had the same experience. I ordered a hoagie and had to run a gauntlet of fucking questions about everything that went into it.
Would you like some fresh green lettuce on your Subway Italian Style Hoagie?
FUCK!!!1!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(2) Wait a minute. What's all this about carefully choosing your wine?
Am I the only person here who always orders the second least expensive bottle of wine?
(3) Crap!!!!!!!!11!!!!
"Am I the only person here who always orders the second least expensive bottle of wine?"
I figure they are familiar with that strategy and price the selections accordingly.
Go with the third least expensive to beat 'em at their own game.
" I ordered a hoagie and had to run a gauntlet of fucking questions about everything that went into it.".
Well, if you took Subway Ordering 101 instead of Women's Studies in school, you would be better prepared for the challenges of real life.
Colorado has just become in my book the best state in the world, and that's even when compared to other nations.
Ari - second hand tobacco smoke causes cancer. Weed does not. Tobacco smokers who smoke weed actually decrease their risk for cancer compared to those who smoke tobacco alone.
I actually don't mind the smell of pipes and cigars. But manufacturers of "cigarettes" per se are a nasty bunch. To add formaldehyde and ammonia to an inhaled product is downright rank, but they did it to increase addictiveness, and not for any pleasure that could somehow be attributed to the act of simply smoking the stuff.
I'd even speculate that if all the country's tobacco users had stuck with pipes and cigars the revolt against 2nd hand smoke probably wouldn't have gone as far as it did. But then, the manufacturers' market share/profits would have sucked. They aimed for addiction as a business model and hid and lied about the botched documents of the harms of how they went about it until their royal asses got handed to them in court.
Ask Chickie what he'd think about ingesting formaldehyde and ammonia. Cross-linking your own cellular proteins and breathing window cleaner and a piss breakdown product is a difficult thing to defend, but when your brain chemistry has been intentionally altered by a corporation, I guess such a person would defend anything that corporation chooses to do to him.
Banning e-cigarettes doesn't make any sense, as far as I can tell. I've seen DJs puff away on them in smokeless bars and noticed nothing close to the nuisance that cigarettes are to the non-self poisoning crowd.
R & B said (casually)...
Ari - second hand tobacco smoke causes cancer. Weed does not. Tobacco smokers who smoke weed actually decrease their risk for cancer compared to those who smoke tobacco alone.
Only true *statistically* (not physiologically) because pot smokers smoke doobies, blunts, etc. less frequently than cigarette tobacco smokers. Those using bongs increase the exposre of every puff (every clean one after a week of fuse?) Same poison in burning tar and resin, just smaller does...the 2nd hand stuff, if sufficient fumes are present from multiple weed smokers, is the same as tobacco. So we can half-agree :-))
Google the topic and you will find multiple entires citing the difference as frequently of use not toxicity. I am a lung cancer survivor, one who actually liked smoking. I asked many doctors about alternatives, even weed, and all said no way.
The whole idea founders on the assumption that you can meld pot smokers and fine dining. Hippies fight the power, man, they don't wash their hair and feet to sit down and dine among the power, man
That's like saying you can't have a restaurant that serves southern cooking because the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule prevents anyone from coming inside to eat. :)
Or that you can't open a Jewish deli because the owner will spend all his time haggling with the customers.
Those using bongs increase the exposre of every puff (every clean one after a week of fuse?)
Every pause to consider that the gunk in question was filtered out *by* the bong and thus didn't make it into your lungs?
Tobacco water-pipes are similarly healthier. The problem is that nicotine is water-soluable, so addicts end up smoking more to make up for it.
I wonder if they'll be doing der Deutscher Blick for Feds.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Colorado has just become in my book the best state in the world, and that's even when compared to other nations.
Well, we knew Ritmo came from a different plane of existence.
second hand tobacco smoke causes cancer. Weed does not. Tobacco smokers who smoke weed actually decrease their risk for cancer compared to those who smoke tobacco alone.
The Blonde disagrees. Marijuana is a worse carcinogen than tobacco, result of much study.
As with so much else, Ritmo is blowing smoke.
The Blonde disagrees. Marijuana is a worse carcinogen than tobacco, result of much study.
"I know someone who says you're wrong" lacks a certain something as a counter-argument.
Links, plz. :)
Not smoking is fatal 100% of the time. I don't smoke yet, and you have to take statistics like that seriously, so smoking seems like it may be worth the cost. If I want to start smoking, I'm thinking that the ideal method would be an e-doobie. I have a friend in the medical marijuana business, and she says they already have them.
Colorado sucks. Tell all your friends, Ritmo. It's terrible here.
Rev, we're talking about a nurse of 43 years' experience going from years of research.
I'll take her word.
Revenant ... you got me ... I was careless in using the term "bong" when I meant an ordinary weed pipe of whatever material...like this one. It filters nothing what-so-ever. I still have mine from my time in Asia, so I know the difference....and since I live in the hookah center of the universe I should have known better.
Marijuana is a worse carcinogen than tobacco, result of much study.
Cite it, smoke blower.
ed has convened a special commission of one and put the issue through much personal study. He did a lot of thinking on his own and decided that any actual evidence was out of the question.
Oh, I'm coming your way, April!
We're all coming your way.
Not that you'd want your state's schools well funded by "tourism" dollars, or anything.
But I digress. Republican self-defeatism has spoken. Don't come here! Don't help our economy! Don't pay our taxes!
And Republicans wonder how they got to be less credible on fiscal matters.
Ritmo is only interested in the Lefty agenda; if the population is stupefied, it will be that much easier to put commie messiahs like Choom and DeBlasio in charge.
That stat about pot being more carcinogenic than tobacco has been around for decades, but who cares about facts?
e-doobies are state of the art. Watch Reason or Vice videos or any of those libertarian media enterprises on it. They get way into all the weed stuff. You will learn much, young Padawan.
Ritmo is only interested in the Lefty agenda; if the population is stupefied, it will be that much easier to put commie messiahs like Choom and DeBlasio in charge.
Once again: Cite it. Stop graffitiing the thread with the Republican buzzwords scrambler and post your darn citation, already.
Even if weed smokers smoke less generally than ciggie smokers, how is that not worth figuring into the health data? We'd prefer to increase the legality/availability/acceptability of things that are addictive enough to lead to excessive use as a norm but decrease the legality/availability/acceptability of things that people are more likely to do in moderation? That doesn't seem rational, even if it were the sole reason for different health outcomes, which it really isn't.
Colorado has enough idiots. Get off my lawn!
Oh, the idiots are coming, April! Pretty soon they will outnumber the cranks and fuddy-duddies. It's inevitable.
You can't have a vote like the proposition now being implemented and not have it. How many Obama terms did Colorado vote for?
I think I'll get a 2nd property out there.
Oh, you'll fight like hell to keep up the hard-edge asshole contingent reputation, but pretty soon things will mellow out.
Welcome, neighbor!
You can come to my house-warming party, April. We'll serve lots of chocolate, liquor, spirits, weed, finger food, etc. And enemas, too. For the tight-asses.
I never really considered that there would be an influx of people who move here JUST for the pot. Sorry - that's depressing. Now I hope other states legalize it just to even it out a bit.
Rev, we're talking about a nurse of 43 years' experience going from years of research. I'll take her word.
A link to one of "studies" would have taken less time to type than the above argument-from-authority fallacy did. Just sayin'.
I meant an ordinary weed pipe of whatever material...like this one. It filters nothing what-so-ever.
A pipe that filtered out nothing at all would be spotless, not filthy. Pretty much by definition. To the best of my knowledge there aren't any controlled studies of whether marijuana pipes get dirtier than tobacco pipes, but I'd be interested in seeing one.
In any event, your argument that marijuana is only safer "statistically" is dishonest. That marijuana users inhale less smoke isn't a statistical artifact; it is a function of the fact that marijuana smoke is a more efficient delivery mechanism for THC than tobacco smoke is for nicotine. "How unhealthy is 1 cigarette or 1 joint" is a silly standard -- the correct standard is "how unhealthy is a daily dose's worth of cigarettes or joints".
That stat about pot being more carcinogenic than tobacco has been around for decades
So have the stats that guns cause crime and government spending helps the economy.
It turns out that "stats" can get passed around pretty much indefinitely so long as there are enough people who want them to be true. :)
Revenant and R & B .... you are both reading way too much in to what I said. You seem to think I am against pot legalization. Where did I say that?
All I am saying is the "smoking" is "smoking." Puff for puff, tobacco and weed are equivalent. Less puffs are utilized by pot smokers, so there is less negative effect puff by puff, which does not prove it is less chemically toxic. There's nothing "dishonest" about that statistical fact. I was addressing the arbitrary statement that pot doesn't hurt you while tobacco does...partially true only if you consider frequency of inhalation...plus the oddity that pot smoking may be allowed in restaurants and bars while smoking is not.
Next, you seem focused on the tar/resin issue of pipes, weed or tobacco....e.g., that residue implies it isn't being inhaled. No, that implies only that all of it is not inhaled, weed or tobacco.
I really liked smoking and quitting was difficult, but with lung cancer I didn't figure I had a choice. Could I have continued without negative effects? Maybe...but that's not a gamble I wanted to take after 55+ years of smoking 2 to 3 packs of Camels or Winstons per day, plus cigars when I felt like it (I inhaled cigars), and pipes if I felt like the hassle and mess of it. None of the Oncologists, Internists, and Vascular doctors I talked to said I could smoke tobacco or weed...and I did ask.
Smoking is smoking. I'm inclined to try e-cigs now and then but resist because the nicotine high I got for 66 years is enticing and I could easily backslide. E-weed would be resisted for the same reason, although I'd have no issues with that use by others. Hell, I don't even mind others smoking around me, indoors or out.
Simply said (wish I could ever do that :-) ... what other people smoke matters not to me. If they smoke or drink intoxicants on the job I object because a good part of my life was spent in occupations that careless oversight by a co-worker could get you killed.
Just a guess: if pot became legal everywhere in the USA tomorrow, it would be banned in restaurants and bars within a year or two. It doesn't bother me, but I am a minority about smoke per se...maybe becasue my early trade took me into steel mills and foundries...who knows.
Pssst R & B...I answered your question about FEHBP portability on the topical thread where you asked it. It is not only effectively portable, it has no prior condition limitations.
Really a great blog with a best thoughts and ideas are shared thanks for sharing such an interesting article.
Vaporizer
Puff for puff, tobacco and weed are equivalent
That's not a scientifically supported statement. It also isn't a useful statement, since we don't know what the danger of EITHER drug is on a per-puff basis. We have a wealth of data on what smoking five or six thousand cigarettes a year -- typical smoker usage -- does to the human body. We have little data on what smoking one or two hundred cigarettes a year does, because virtually no tobacco users match that pattern. But that's the typical rate of marijuana usage -- one or two hundred joints a year.
The human body can safely handle light exposure to most carcinogens without statistically significant risk of cancer. E.g., mold is carcinogenic, but we all breathe small amounts of it every day. You can have the occasional beer without risk, walk across a parking lot without getting skin cancer, and so on.
So, is smoking a third of a joint (or cigarette) per day bad for you? Nobody knows. Anyone who claims they do is making stuff up.
Revenant said...
Re:"Puff for puff, tobacco and weed are equivalent"
That's not a scientifically supported statement.
You are making my point for me by citing frequency as a factor purportedly not yet determined to be harmful.
If a single puff of tobacco and a single puff of weed is measured, they will both reflect similar toxicity..e.g., how much it takes to be harmful is not the point I was making.
Let me repeat what you seem to not get about my opinion: I do not have any issue with weed smoking, or tobacco smoking, and think both should be permitted wherever they don't impact other people in a irritating manner.
I am not arguing with you, you are arguing with yourself citing purported unknowns.
Vaporizers virtually eliminate the carcinogens in using cannabis. There are not only the large vaporizers, but the E cig type that are mobile. The anti tobacco, cannabis folks don't know how to deal w/ vaporizing, because it is a safe alternative.
I think the vaporizers are promising,. I cannot stand stinky cigarette smoke.
You are making my point for me by citing frequency as a factor purportedly not yet determined to be harmful.
Heh, no. What I pointed out was that we don't know what the minimum amount of smoke is that will begin to increase cancer risk. We just know that certain rates, well above what marijuana smokers inhale, have been shown to elevate risk.
If a single puff of tobacco and a single puff of weed is measured, they will both reflect similar toxicity..
Do you not know what the word "toxicity" means? A single puff of either tobacco or marijuana has no measurable negative effect on the human body, and thus no measurable toxicity. You can't even argue that the chemicals involved are "similarly" toxic, since there is little overlap in chemical content and little understanding of which chemicals are harmful to humans.
Here's some food for thought: if smoking marijuana is as dangerous as smoking tobacco, puff for puff, why wasn't there a surge in health problems related to marijuana smoking when the drug became popular during over the last 50 years? There are ten million regular users of marijuana who don't otherwise smoke; why has that not created a statistically significant increase in lung cancer, heart disease, or other ailments? Why do deaths attributable to tobacco outnumber those attributable to marijuana by literally a million to one, when tobacco users only outnumber marijuana users by ten to one?
I'm sorry, but if you want to argue that the drug is toxic to humans, you need to do better. Because from where I'm standing, peanuts are more toxic to humans than marijuana is. :)
Let me repeat what you seem to not get about my opinion: I do not have any issue with weed smoking
You appear to be reading some imaginary thread in which I'm accusing you of wanting to ban smoking. Back here in reality, I have done nothing of the kind, and am simply criticizing your unsupported health claims.
Revenant...okay, you win, Marijuana has no toxic impact on humans.
What exactly is your argument? You insist my remarks are all false. It must be good to be infallible. Your entire approach is based upon historical, not chemical, issues....e.g. how many folks have died due to tobacco versus the relatively new domestic marijuana exposure.
Personally I will take the word of the vascular, oncologist, and internist physicians who to a man/woman told me that smoked/burned Marijuana is toxic and potentially related to squamous cell cavity lesions in the lungs ... the exact type of cancer I had.
You can argue proofs all you want (you've demanded citations from others but have offered none of your own on the subject)....there's no risk, until there is risk is a pretty vague concept. Prediction is to be ignored.
The very idea resin residue on pipes implied it was all "filtered" before inhalation is obtuse at best. I've smoked almost everything there is to smoke, that isn't man-made in some toilet of a kitchen, and I'm perfectly happy to let you think what you do.
Marijuana has no toxic impact on humans.
Do you realize that the link you provided refutes your claim that marijuana is "puff for puff" equivalent to tobacco? I'm guessing you just copy-pasted the first hit on Google. :)
What exactly is your argument?
I am observing that your argument is incorrect. I am not arguing for anything.
You insist my remarks are all false. It must be good to be infallible.
I see you've moved from "making incorrect statements" to "lying and building straw men to attack". Yawn.
Your entire approach is based upon historical, not chemical, issues....e.g. how many folks have died due to tobacco versus the relatively new domestic marijuana exposure. how many folks have died due to tobacco versus the relatively new domestic marijuana exposure.
Weird. An issue I didn't raise until my last post represents "my entire approach"? I must be a time traveler. :)
I'm not arguing that the absence of cancers over fifty years of widespread use proves marijuana is safe. I asked you to provide an explanation for the absence. Your response is that fifty years isn't long enough -- weird, given that tobacco use causes surges in cancer rates even after a single year.
Personally I will take the word of the vascular, oncologist, and internist physicians who to a man/woman told me that smoked/burned Marijuana is toxic and potentially related to squamous cell cavity lesions in the lungs ... the exact type of cancer I had.
I've bolded the relevant word.
Your claim was that it IS as dangerous as tobacco. My observation was that that claim is scientifically unsupported. Those oncologists, et al, are in agreement with me on that point. If your claim was supported they would say "smoking marijuana has been proven to cause squamous cell carcinoma".
That about wraps that up, I think.
Revenant...I give up. You win...no evidence of what I have said what-so-ever....
Smoking marijuana can lead to symptoms of airway obstruction as well as squamous metaplasia. Clinical manifestations of pathophysiology due to marijuana smoking are now being reported. These include: long-term impairment of memory in adolescents; prolonged impairment of psychomotor performance; a sixfold increase in the incidence of schizophrenia; cancer of mouth, jaw, tongue and lung in 19-30 year olds; fetotoxicity; and non-lymphoblastic leukemia in children of marijuana-smoking mothers.
By the way, my original comment utilized equality of dosage, a rather standard laboratory quantitative technique.
You are demanding certainty fail safe or it doesn't exist. Okay by me. Smoke up.
Finally, dude, stating that my position is incorrect is in fact arguing by means of dispute. Semantics not you best subject I gather.
Post a Comment