The Snapchat caption – “birthday day treat” – didn’t leave much to the imagination, but reporting of the latest powder-gate has been at pains to clarify it “is not suggesting the white substance is drugs”.

But if outlets weren’t thinking that, there would be no story published at all.

Most will agree that children of politicians shouldn’t face the same scrutiny their parents signed up for in choosing elected office.

Following widespread reporting of the wayward Snapchat that featured Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s son posing with a bag containing an unknown substance, government minister Tanya Plibersek summed it up well: “Peter Dutton’s a public figure, but his son’s not … It’s not an easy life. We go into public life and we choose it. Our families don’t choose it, that’s for sure.”

So while the decent-minded tend to want to give the teenager a break, the entire discussion is driven by an elephant in the room that few speak out loud.

According to the 2022-23 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, 18 per cent of Australians had used an illicit drug in the previous 12 months – that’s 3.4 million people. In all, 47 per cent have done so in their lifetime.

Dutton’s son is 18. In 2022-2023, 35 per cent of people aged 18 to 24 had used an illicit drug in the previous 12 months – that’s 800,000 people.

It’s as common as sand on the beach. That an 18-year-old might experiment and party with friends is just about the least surprising thing you’ll read today.

So what is all the fuss about?

Well, despite it being a normal part of life for close to half of the population, it is still illegal, and subject to hyperventilating and fear-mongering from politicians and the police, including the Opposition Leader.

But even if the white substance was drugs, the most likely outcome is that young Dutton will go on to become a happy, healthy and productive member of the community.

Just like most of the half of Australians who have used drugs at some point.

Yes, there are some serious risks. But they are risks people have taken for millennia and that they will never stop taking.

The real story is the absurdity of our drug laws, and the foolishness of the people who defend them.

We can’t all be brain surgeons. But, for the most part, even those of us in the most menial run-of-the-mill type jobs can feel proud at the end of the day for keeping the world moving forward in some small way.

We can feel sorry for the police enforcing our drug laws, who dedicate their professional lives to an utterly pointless strategy.

It’s a strategy that not only criminalises millions of Australians, but has failed to reduce drug use, failed to dismantle criminal cartels, and made it much harder for people who do experience addiction issues to get help.

That’s right, not only is the so-called “tough” approach to drug use a colossal waste of resources, it also makes the community more dangerous.

Criminals profit from the failure of our politicians to control the drug market. Their strategy protects the black market by refusing to regulate it. It sends people with health issues to jail and allows the multibillion-dollar trade to thrive without any controls.

The main argument deployed in defence of this comical – if it were not so dangerous – system is; that authorities must send a signal that drug taking is never safe.

It’s a bogus argument designed to pass the buck on the failure to control the market down to drug consumers.

Should we start banning skydiving, boxing or mountain climbing? No, we regulate them to minimise risks and kick out the cowboys who don’t care about their customers.

Every time I see one of the regular PR stunts boasting of another “record haul” of drugs worth millions, I wonder how the senior drug police fronting the press conferences can keep a straight face.

They know full well that the market is completely saturated and always has been.

It’s easy to buy cocaine, MDMA or any other illegal substance you may wish. They know the street prices have remained largely the same.

They know their latest sting has done naught to change drug-taking behaviour or to reduce availability. They arguably deserve accolades for their commitment to the job, but they have never once succeeded at it.

After countless inquiries, inquests and experts recommending a different strategy on drugs that prioritises a health approach instead of punishment, we still march on with this pointless crusade.

Despite the overwhelming evidence, it seems far too difficult for an old guard of politicians and police to accept their lifetime work has failed.

Thankfully, we are beginning to take small steps forward nonetheless.

The recent announcement of pill-testing trials in Queensland and Victoria, to follow the more mature ACT program, are practical measures that will give young people who are experimenting real-time health information, and warn of dangerous contaminants that are inevitable in a market controlled by criminals.

The spotlight on Peter Dutton’s son is unfair, but it also further exposes the lightweight arguments of a failed “war on drugs” mindset.

The job of our lawmakers and police should be to keep people as safe as possible, not criminalise or punish half the population. Perhaps it will be this young man’s generation that will finally realise a better path forward.

Peter Stahel is managing director and co-owner of Essential, a progressive research and communications company, a non-executive director of drug law reform organisation Unharm and a former Greens adviser