Tim James Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 There have always been certain 'mind stirring' substances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 the pot-smokers-of-the-world-unite crowd jumped on this one years ago. Shakespeare was definitely not a pothead. How do you know he wasn't?! It was legal back then why would he not have used it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Does it matter whether he was or wasn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 How do you know he wasn't?! It was legal back then why would he not have used it? Oy, I said that! Does it matter whether he was or wasn't? Not at all. If he did smoke it, it's only like saying "The Queen drinks sherry!" which is currently perfectly legal and socially acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Scientists are hoping to be allowed access to his remains in order to test for the substance after finding traces of the drug in his smoking pipes. One of England's most celebrated historical figures who shaped and changed the way we use our language could of been a pot head? At least us smokers know that we are in good company! so what, that was then and this is now. just because someone in the 1500's/1600's could do x, that doesn't mean you should do they same today, unless you want torture, executions and the poor laws back that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattricia Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Does it matter whether he was or wasn't? It doesnt matter a hoot. !! He would have still been a great writer whether on or off cannabis. There are people who took cannabis who could not write. Point made !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 unless you want torture, executions and the poor laws back that is. The difference is that torture and execution and poverty affect people en masse. Smoking weed only harms (if it does so) the individual. Plus, if he did smoke weed, then one can argue that the drug has made a contribution to the English language, English heritage and English theatre - which is a huge statement to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 He would have still been a great writer whether on or off cannabis. That is supposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 they used to eat magic mushrooms back then too I'm not sure they did. Evidence of deliberate use (as opposed to accidental ingestion) only goes back to the 60s. If you know of anything concrete that would show deliberate usage in this country going back further than that, I would be very interested! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greengeek Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Shakespeare gotta get paid, son Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.