As part of our continuing effort to educate Nick Cohen (and other decent leftists. We’ll turn them all into libertarians yet.) a clarification of his money and cocaine story this morning:

Round about 70AD, the Emperor Vespasian decided to tax Rome’s
lavatories. His refined son complained he was soiling the imperial
purple with the odours of communal toilets. Vespasian picked up a coin
and sniffed it. ‘Pecunia non olet,’ he declared with satisfaction –
‘Money doesn’t smell.’

The Tonbridge gang probably shouldn’t cite
the emperor in their defence. The authorities are terribly proud of
their ‘cash dogs’ – labradors and spaniels which can sniff out wads of
notes. I had heard from a handler in London that so much cocaine was
snorted off notes, the dogs smelled the drug. But a man at Customs told
me they had been trained to smell the ink and would find the notes,
cocaine or no cocaine.

Pecunia non olet? Tell that to the cocker spaniels.

It may well be that the dogs are smelling the ink. But as to the cocaine on bank notes. No, it isn’t that so many of them are used for snorting the stuff, not at all. Recent reports have it that 2% of the country use cocaine. So no more than 2% of the populace can be putting cocaine on bank notes. Obviously, that doesn’t mean 2% of bank notes either.  Some won’t use notes at all, some will have more than one note in their possession when they snort etc etc.

So why is it that most bank notes (some reports put it at 70%) have traces of cocaine on them? Because we have ATM machines and automated note counting machines. That 1% (or 0.5%, or 0.1%) of notes that are indeed directly contaminated cross-contaminate when they re-enter the banking system.

Why is this trivial point of any interest?  Because, unfortunately, it isn’t actually trivial. Possession of notes that  are contaminated with cocaine has been used by prosecutors in the US as "proof" that the money must be connected with the drugs trade and is thereore forfeit. And that, for the reason above, is nonsense.