I am pretty sure that some drugs are a little bit more infamous for wreaking havoc on the lives of countless humans than others are, hence, a drug like Meth, for a disproportionate number of people, comparatively speaking. In other words, what percentage of all those who try Meth and become dependent on it actually, tangibly, increase the quality of their lives? How many do not? And for that matter, what are the consequences of an addiction to a drug like Meth for the average human being, and what of ourselves are we sacrificing in the name of any perceived benefit? And of course we can ask this about any drug available to us, and certainly big pharma's array of chemicals.
So yeah...all drugs are a risk to use. But some drugs, statistically and otherwise, are more risky to use and are far more destructive to the human being than others. I am no prohibitionist, of course, and I know people will do what they do. But working on the treatment end of things for a long time, I could tell you one train-wreck story after another, and there are many common denominators in the world of drug dependency, as we all know, but I do know that some drugs have a tendency of destroying people much faster and much more completely than others do. I think that anyone with any intuition and knowledge on the topic knows as much.
So a reasonable way to look at it is, "Has meth hurt or helped people more?", physically, emotionally, financially, relationally, psychologically, and spiritually?
A complicated question, in many ways. But when confronted with this rather pragmatic unit of measure, I believe the answer we all know is that it is the former, as opposed to the latter. We are all capable of self-deception, naturally, but some things you just cannot run away from. A simple risk/reward, cost/benefit analysis, and being as honest as we can be with ourselves in terms of why we make the decisions that we do is necessary.