http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/

has some good data although no indication of deaths by attack (and this is where islamic terrorism is so dangerous = the attacks of March 11 2004 were far more deadly than those of ETA)

yeah there were some similar comments by european governments when it's so easy to make it legal and have it taxed the way the dutch do

I suppose I was a little off.  It was about drugs in general not just marijuana.  I added the video to the my original post. 

"In The Netherlands the substances which are commonly seen as ‘illegal drugs’ are divided by law into 2 groups: harddrugs (List I) and softdrugs (List II).

Cannabis is seen as a softdrug. Within the Netherlands there is no active prosecution against the individual users of softdrugs, but the substances itself maintain illegal.

The Dutch created for this their own official ‘Policy of Tolerance’ (in Dutch: ‘Gedoogbeleid’). The government formulates it way more difficult, but in streetterms you can just explain it as an official ‘closing of the eyes’.

This Policy of Tolerance does have its limits: - It's not allowed to possess more then 5 grams of cannabis in a public area or 30 grams in a private area. - For cultivation you may not exceed the amount of 5 plants.

When you exceed these limits the tolerance stops and there will be some legal charges against you, when busted of course. So if you just follow these limits above you won’t have to worry about legal troubles at all."

http://www.dailysmoker.com/cannabis-legal-amsterdam-netherlands

Basically if you can't go as far as legalizing all the soft drugs then you should at least not bother individual users of soft drugs (and I believe hard drugs also).  Putting drug users in jail for possession is about the dumbest decision to be made.  It solves nothing and only adds costs to imprison these users.  Now, USA is a prison nation with just as bad of a drug problem as it ever had.  The drug war in USA is a failure and Reagan is a piece of shit for escalating it in the 80s. 

USA finds itself in a mess with opium production in Afghanistan now...

"By some, the extermination of the poppy crops is not seen as a viable option because the sale of poppies constitutes the livelihood of Afghanistan's rural farmers. Some 3.3 million Afghans are involved in producing opium."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

Interesting stuff in regard to Opium in Afghanistan.

I can imagine there are some pretty animated talks about that in government haha

No, because Timothy McVeigh has long been called a terrorist and he was white. There are a lot of other examples, too.

Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion.

to answer the thread - no, the Islamic faith has not been associated with this term. maybe in the most ignorant circles of western life it has. however, the great majority of the world associates terrorism with the United States - and rightfully so.

Paranoid much?

Didn't read all the responses, but if the first page was anything to go by, it doesn't look like most of you guys have any sort of case.

Looks like we're in agreement that terrorism is violence in the pursuit of political aims (and often for religious reasons). But you're insisting that Muslim Arab-Americans would be labelled "terrorists" even if they engage in violence without any religious or political motives? That makes no sense to me. People — including investigative journalists, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies — would look INTO the possibility of the individual being a terrorist, yes, but it is a bit far-fetched to believe that they would be labeled as such. Here is a case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing_in_the_United_States

These people were murderers, but none but the most deluded would call them terrorists.

Now for an example of a non-Muslim terrorist...Anders Breivik.

I think the reason you would even go so far as to make your argument has more to do with the fact that most terrorists are, in fact, Muslims. There are many who are not, but it would be impossible to refute the fact that most commonly accepted acts of terrorism are perpetrated by Muslims (unless one were to go so far as to call the USA and Israel 'terrorists' due to their foreign policy, for which a case CAN be made).

That's complete bull. Most people associate Muslims with terrorism plain simple.

If they say they don't, they're just lying because of public peer pressure to not appear like racists and so forth.

Muslims have bought it on themselves by not denouncing the terrorst acts carried out by extreme fringe members of their faith.

You completely contadict the defenition of the term "terrorism", that you yourself used in the first line of your post.

no... its proven pretty much every time. they tried to pin the the dark knight shooter on the tea party, they tried to blaim the gabby giffards shooting on the tea party, the guy that bombed the tax building blamed on the tea party, the government employee that committed sucide was blamed on the tea party, there have been hot mic moments where the media types wished it were the tea party. 

i could go on. the media despertately wants some tea party person to commit some major crime.