This is essentially what a contact high is.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No it's not. A contact high is being fucked up from being in contact with the chemicals that make a person feel the way they do on drugs. Like being in a room full of pot smoke and getting high without actually hitting a bowl. At least that's what people call it here. I'm not sure if there's a real definition or if it varies from place to place or group to group. My group smokes pot regularly, so maybe our definition of it is different to someone who smokes pot occasionally.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's not the true definition, nor is it possible. A contact high is feeling like you are on drugs because you are in contact with someone that is on drugs.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Pretty sure that's called placebo effect not contact high. And it's perfectly possibly to get high from a # my simply being around it. Look up the cop who went to the hospital because he absorbed 1,000 hits of acid through his skin because he was an undercover cop for a # gang and shaved his face before handling acid so it got absorbed into his neck from being in the air. It's not like all the THC is going to be absorbed in their lungs and disappear, especially considering no one holds it in for the 5 to 7 seconds it takes for the THC to be near completely consumed (by smoke). The smoke will be in the air. The smoke contains THC. Even if SOMEHOW people managed to absorb all the THC that went in their lungs, there's still a lot of smoke that isn't being inhaled by them but is just running into the air. If the air contains smoke, the smoke contains THC, and you inhale the smoke, how is it not going to get them high just because they didn't consume the THC purposely? Explain to me how my friend on probation who doesn't believe being in contact with weed would make her high but got high anyway? That completely discredits any theory of a placebo effect. You can even google it. " con...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Placebo effect is taking something that is not active and your brain tricking you in to thinking it is active. LSD isn't even a factor here, it's one of the most potent chemicals in existence. Even so, I can't find any verification about the cop's story, and my gut is telling me it's absolutely not true. And who do you hang around with? //No one// holds it in for 5-7 seconds? I've spent the last six or so years around pot-heads and occasional smokers, as well as being an occasional smoker for the past two years. Holding in the hit for 5-7 seconds is absolutely standard procedure. Most hold it in for as long as they can. Personally, I count to 10. Further, once the smoker breathes out, what infinitesimal percentage of the air do you think the smoke takes up? Any non-smokers are breathing air that is largely not comprised of cannabis-smoke.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

contact high n (Law / Recreational Drugs) a state of altered consciousness caused by inhaling the drugs other people are smoking Placebo effect is believing you feel an effect from a drug when you really don't. The example my psych teacher gave me: Take 100 people with a head ache. Tell them they'll be given either a sugar pill or the real drug (you have to other side your results won't be published cuz it's illegal) and give 50 the real drug, 50 the sugar pill, and people who thought their headache was cured from the sugar pill were influenced by the placebo effect.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I know what the placebo effect is, it's irrelevant here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_high

by Anonymous 11 years ago

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=cop+absorbs+1%2C000+hits+of+acid+through+his+neck&oq=cop+absorbs+1%2C000+hits+of+acid+through+his+neck&gs_l=serp.3...404009.416821.2.417061.63.53.9.1.1.0.198.4357.49j4.53.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.u-Cuq6PBBNU&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=c4b04a54892e7be5&bpcl=35466521&biw=1092&bih=533 If people believe they feel high because they think they should feel high, then the only reason you claim it's irrelevant is because you don't believe in it. Sorry, but I'm gonna trust the dictionary definition and something I know people to have experienced in real life and something that has been disused in a psychology class over a wiki article anyone can edit. Your own article says what it considers a contact high(even though it's not) is unproven, smart. A link on the internet doesn't make a point credible, if that was the case then nhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/contact+high Fuck logic and the actual definitions of words and how they create the definition of compound words.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The term was originally described in a glossary back in 1971. I'm going to trust //that// definition over whatever random dictionary you just pulled that from. Not only that, but it describes the way you are using it as incorrect. Also, if you're so sure that's what it is, explain how people get the feeling of tripping when around people who are actually tripping? They haven't even come in contact with drugs, yet it happens. Can't you just admit you're wrong? http://addictions.about.com/od/designerdrugs/g/What-Is-A-Contact-High.htm http://emergentfool.com/2009/04/23/placebo-effects-marijuana-and-the-contact-high/

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Also, it's funny how the dictionary you put so much trust in uses Wikipedia as a source.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

1971 vs. 2010 psychology student text book. I like how you only mention the wiki article because it suits your argument but when it doesn't the article is ignored. The point of sending you the article wasn't to show you I have so much faith in it, it was that a random link is not proof, which was the ENTIRE POINT of sending you the wiki article, which I even TOLD you.. I've already explained why people get the feeling people are tripping when around people who are tripping, but go ahead and ignore it for the second time because it disproves you and don't re read "placebo effect" and ignore all evidence that proves you wrong while condoning "evidence" you think proves you right because you can't escape your subjective mind frame. Can't you just admit when you're wrong?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You haven't //linked// an article that disproves me. You haven't linked any articles at all! You linked me a Google search for your story which still turns out not a single reliable result, and you linked a definition from a site which takes information from a website you say you don't trust as much as the site you linked. You yourself said you have faith in it! The placebo effect is what happens when taking a pharmacologically inert substance produces quantifiable effects. A contact high is a high gained from being in contact with someone on drugs, a purely psychological state not brought on by any psychoactive substances. And yes, a 1971 glossary of terms relating to drugs has higher authority than a 2010 psychology student text book. It contains the //original// meaning. The original meaning is the only strictly correct meaning. The term can be used for other meanings, but that does not make those meanings correct.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't think you understood the purposeful irony in sharing a link from the same site you did because your link was not proof it's true. I like how you completely ignore "A link on the internet doesn't make a point credible, if that was the case then (random link I posted that can say whatever I want.)" Thus your failed point " You haven't linked an article that disproves me. You haven't linked any articles at all! " is irrelevant not to mention hypocritical. The original meaning or awful is "to be full of awe", so the correct meaning isn't how people ACTUALLY use the word but how people used to use it hundreds of years ago? No. Original meaning=/= correct current meaning. You call someone gay now, you're not calling them happy, you're calling them homosexual.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/awful Definition is still there, just not widely used. Look, I'm going to stop arguing with you. To be completely honest, a lot of things you are saying are complete nonsense to me. You are editing your posts which creates a lot of inconsistencies, and I don't really care enough about this specific topic to drive myself crazy arguing with someone who does not make sense to me.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sorry, I edit my posts a lot during the first few minutes a lot cuz for some reason I only think of a better was to phrase it AFTER I already said it:3 I totally get how that makes it hard to debate with me, I was hoping the edits would happen before you reas them. And OK, I can respect that :) Agree to disagree.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Take note that I'm not saying "I win, this is over". I'm saying "I don't know who wins, I don't care who wins, I'm done."

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You do know it's scientifically impossible to prove a negative? Thus it would be impossible to post a link that directly proves you wrong? Therefor it makes since to prove evidence that supports the opposite of your belief rather than disprove your own belief? You can prove I can do a backflip by watching me do it, you can't prove I can't because I didn't do it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What are you even talking about? How is it scientifically impossible to prove a negative? It would not be impossible to provide evidence that proves me wrong, because all she has to do it provide evidence that proves her right. If we are arguing opposite points, and she is proved correct, I must have been proved incorrect. I have a feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's exactly what they did. " You can prove I can do a backflip by watching me do it, you can't prove I can't because I didn't do it." They provided artivles that proved them right.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How? Nobody proved anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. And that's dumb. Obviously I can't prove you can't do a backflip just because you didn't, but I could prove you couldn't do a backflip by figuring out all of the physiologcial criteria of being able to do a backflip, and then testing your body against that criteria.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In theory, but could you actually do that with any sort of reliable accuracy to say without doubt I can't do a backflip as much as you could by actually seeing the person do a backflip? Not at all. You cannot prove or disprove a negative because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; if you cannot see a color or find a way to see the color, this is not evidence that color does not exist. The non existence of something can't be proven, you can't prove someone doesn't have something. If you thought I stole your shit and you looked in my house for it but didn't find it, that doesn't mean I don't have it. And I'm pretty sure what they meant is they're going to take a current definition from the internet age over an older definition because words change meaning over time. Wiki sites it's sources it's not less reliable than an out of date text book.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The "in theory" part completely disproves your notion of "scientific impossibility". All you're doing is giving examples that I can't do, not that are impossible. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but you //can// find evidence of absence. You can prove or disprove a color's existence based on whether or not it exists on the spectrum of visible light. If it doesn't exist within that spectrum, it's not a color. If it does, then it is a color. If I thought you stole my stuff, I could detain you and search every area you have access to. If I don't find my object, you didn't steal it. If I do, I could look for prints or other DNA markers. If it has your DNA on it, you stole it. You want another example of proving a negative? I find an unknown metal, and I don't think it's iron. I want to prove it's not iron, so I wet it and expose it to oxygen. It does not rust, therefore it is not iron. There, I just managed to prove a negative. The word hasn't really changed meaning over time, though. Kids are just using it wrong, nowadays. Similar to how kids use "ignorant" to describe each other when it's not the correct word to use. If you want a recent example of it used correctly

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Respected psychiatrist Stanislav Grof used the term "contact high" to refer to a feeling he got while treating a patient who was under the effects of LSD. He came in contact with no drugs, he simply got a feeling of intoxication by being in contact with someone who was actually on drugs. The book he used the term in was published in 2006. Another reason I disagree with the new meaning is that it's impossible to get high off of someone else's smoke. It's simply impossible.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's weird. People like to think they're in control of their actions and that their personality is unique, but you pick up the quirks habits and phrases your friends have, you don't even mean to act drunk but you do. People think their surroundings don't effect them as much as they really do.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I stumble a bit more, but usually because when they are drunk it's very early in the morning.

by Anonymous 11 years ago