One can then say winning poker players are the same as drug dealers because no one is making the consumer buy coke. They would say.. taking money from an addicted gambler is the same as selling coke to a coke addict.
But IMO the key difference is that the losing poker player while providing no benefit to society is simply winning money from others whom have a chance to win also, whereas the drug dealer (note that we compare to the drug dealer, not the drug purchaser, since this claim is in relation to those considered a "job") not only provides no benefit to society (providing that particular service may be a benefit to an individual, but can not by any means be considered a benefit to society as a whole), and actually has a negative outcome on society like Duggs mentioned earlier- ie crime rates etc.
Arguably, crushing souls at a poker table could indirectly lead to an inflation in crime rates since people might losin every last dollar they have an then turn to crime. However, this is inconsistent with the drug dealer in that the losing poker player doesn't have to turn to crime to make an income, whereas the drug dealers form of income is by definition a crime.
So IMO, they may seem similar at first, but when you examine in it in much more detail, the two aren't really the same at all.
I feel like I'm in English class again writing an essay lol FFS...