Shakespeare probably smoked weed, stoners say.
Shakespeare probably smoked weed, GCMS instrument says.
GCMS instrument says that cuz a stoner was using it.
If true, that would make him one hell of an early adopter. Tobacco and coca are New World plants, I think cannabis too?
He probably drank water from a lead pipe too.
Nope. Wikipedia says central Asia and India, so it’s entirely possible for him to have had some.
I thought nobody knows for sure who Shakespeare was? How can they know what he smoked?
The actual publication says:
Unequivocal evidence for Cannabis has not been obtained […] The results are suggestive but do not prove the presence of Cannabis.
all of the pipe bowl samples in this study probably date to the 17th century
Given that Shakespeare died in 1616, it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that these might have been his pipes, even if they were found in his garden.
They know exactly who Shakespeare was. He was Shakespeare, and there’s ample evidence he was made of flesh and blood.
There’s a persistent idea that a commoner couldn’t possibly have written such thoughtful and cosmopolitan plays, so there’s always a search for some nobleman who really wrote them. But nobody disputes he was a real person. That’s Jesus you’re thinking of.
1616 is actually an important part of the 17th century.
I don’t dispute he was real - his plays and sonnets are obviously still with us - I just thought there was a controversy about which of several people he could have been. I thought I saw something about it on the History Channel ages and ages ago.
Like @Boundegar said. The “controversy” is about who wrote (Or rather, ghostwrote) Shakespeare’s plays, hence, who Shakespeare “really” is.
Nah, Cannabis is from southern china originally I think? And by Shakespeare’s time had spread westward through central asia as people found out it had interesting effects…
So we force school kids to read stoner poetry, but then jail them if they smoke weed.
You’re saying it false alerted? Now they got PC on the Bard and he can’t refuse the search.
It’s a common mental fudge to think that the 17th century should match up with 17xx dates, but that isn’t the case. 1616 is 17th century. 'Tis no stretch atall.
Yes, I realise that. My point was that Shakespeare was alive for only 16% of the 17th century.
Well there’s the obvious flaw right there.
It’s from neither.
It’s native to Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent.