Also, there is definitely a huge distinction between taxing dealers who are going to operate anyway and dealing drugs yourself.
Well, I don't know. There have been plenty of mafia crimes when to commit them wasn't the boss's idea, when he just limited himself to give the ok. Yet, if it's proven, he can be prosecuted for the crime. So, how it's different with drugs? He didn't distance himself from it, he made profit from it, this makes him an accomplice both morally and juridically. Maybe if you just take a part of laundered money, you get a lesser sentence than you would have gotten had you directly supervised the dealing yourself, yet I wouldn't consider "anti-drug" anybody who launders money from drug traffickers or takes a part of the profit, since these actions encourage more drug dealing. I don't think there has ever been a boss who was REALLY anti-drug, meaning not only forbidding made members to deal, but also not having profit on the side.
