rs666: for me, it is the context of the use of those words that would indicate moralism, not simply the words themselves.
of course there are differences between all substances, how they are used, and their (often quite different) effects on different individuals. and some seem to have more dramatic effects - on most folks that i know, anyway - than others. but does that make the substances "bad"? (that would be moralistic to me). or does it indicate something about the usage of the substances and by whom?
excessive coffee use has caused heart attacks and strokes in many people; or at least been determined (medically) to be a major contributing factor. the use of marijuana is considered high risk for individuals with certain conditions - particularly heart conditions. on the flip side of your equation, i have known at least a dozen completely "functional" (according to the predominant measures of capitalism and mass society) heroin addicts. your differentiation seems far too cliche for me.
why does one feel the need to describe some drugs as "good" and others as "bad"? to paraphrase andrew weil (in "from chocolate to morphine"): there are no bad (or good) drugs, only bad (or good) relationships with drugs. of course i would probably use different terminology, but i think the point is spot on.