It means "money does not stink". A coin earned from scrubbing toilets spends the same as one earned from curing cancer, or one earned by selling contraband, or one given to charity, or one slipped into a g-string.
If you start spending your dollar bills, and someone demands to know where they came from, the only proper response is that it does not matter, because they are bearer instruments. All that matters is that the person who holds them is presumed to be the owner.
If the possibility that someone might steal your dollar bill and spend it for his own benefit galls you too much, don't use cash, or any other bearer instruments. Or keep receipts every time the notes change hands. But be assured that your mugger is taking your cash because he intends to spend it later, in lieu of performing multiple less-convenient crimes.
This business of pursuing someone for spending supposedly tainted money cannot end well. How is an ordinary person supposed to know when they should not accept it, when the money itself does not stink?
The crime rightfully attaches to the criminal, not to his cash.
I could be wrong about that, but as far as I'm aware it was an innocent connection to drugs. After all, if you are impeaching civil liberties you may need a smokescreen like drugs or terrorism, but making it illegal to use illegally-gained funds is something I suspect most US citizens would be OK with immediately without the need for deception.
With a bit more knowledge I could certainly be persuaded (not that it matters) into thinking this additional law is either good or bad for society - and I'm someone who supports the decriminalization (and probably the legalization, but my mind isn't quite made up on that) of all drugs, so purely within the scope of the war on drugs I'm against any law that furthers it.
Much in the same way that you can skew poll results based on the way that you phrase a question. For example, years ago there was a poll about whether or not people wanted ala carte cable channels. The question they were asked was, "Do you want more choice or less choice in cable programming?" Obviously people want more choice, but this answer was associated (by the pollsters) as being against ala carte options for cable.
You could ask: "Do you think court should be simplified and less money wasted on lawyers by not chasing unnecessary extra charges?"
That's a simple enough question that most people could get behind.
""Congress, initially as part of the War on Drugs but later expanded to include most federal offenses, criminalized almost every financial transaction that flows from funds that are the proceeds of ‘specified unlawful activity,’" Bruce Maloy, an Atlanta-based attorney and an expert in US extradition law, told Ars by e-mail.
"In simplest terms, if you possess funds from a crime and do anything with the money other than bury it in the ground or hide it under the mattress, you have committed a new crime. Spending the money is a new crime, opening a bank account is a new crime. These expenditures do not have to be in furtherance of the original crime, but my recollection is that here it alleged that they are. In short, throwing in a money laundering allegation is quite common in US federal indictments."
Page Pate, another Atlanta-based defense lawyer who has also worked on international extradition cases, agreed. "It's almost automatic to add money laundering charges to any offense whether it's drug-related or not," he said. "I haven't seen it that often in criminal copyright cases. The US has been very aggressive in adding money laundering and forfeiture in criminal cases.""
Ain't it great, War on Drugs?