I notice that the per kilograms measure for harm is also useful to account for volume of usage, but think that per 'dose' would be better.
Meth: $1.1m per kg with 743kg consumption
Cannabis: $0.35m per kg with 58000kg consumption
These figures include 'associative crime' as harm. So it apparent counts the cost of buying it as harm, it also counts the tax loss of that expenditure, so IMHO it skews unfavourabley to higher expenditure. But put that aside.
These figures show that all illicit drugs combined are less harmful to society than alcohol, and tautologically the harm is inflated by illegality.
I promise you that meth would cause far more problems if it was consumed anywhere near the frequency of alcohol. Anyone who has watched someone destroy their lives with meth knows just how dangerous and damaging it is. The scariest part is the speed at which it can happen. People destroy their lives with alcohol too, but it usually takes decades. I've watched people become hollow shells of their former selves, completely unrecognizable, and standing on death's doorstep, within six months of their first usage of methamphetamine. It's a destructive, dirty, dangerous drug.
Also are Russian and Chinese police as famous for gunning down their citizens as the US? That comment was just all over the place, and I'm still not sure what country TexasDrunk was referencing..