Peter Dunne may sound grumpy about the media's sudden interest in his views on drugs but in fact he should be singing inside.

Surrounded by the treacle-like torpor of a National Government it appears at last he may be making some headway in stimulating a reasoned, rational debate on the legality of drugs and on drug offending. This month he is travelling to New York to take part in a special session of the United Nations General Assembly on drugs and drug policy.

It is gradually dawning on many governments across the world that the punitive style of dealing with those who break laws by possessing illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia is not working. The harshness of sentences in some countries are often jarringly at odds with the seriousness of the crimes and it is increasingly obvious it may be beneficial to approach the drug problem from a different direction, perhaps making it a health rather than a criminal issue.

There will be some in New Zealand who will remain completely opposed to any softening in stance on drugs however compelling the arguments may be, let alone going a step further and sparking discussion about the merits of decriminalising the personal use of cannabis. Let's not be too hasty in our rush to become as liberal on cannabis as other countries and parts of the United States, but bring on the debate by all means.

Dunne is annoyed that his attempts to be progressive have been misconstrued by some journalists as a recent, "remarkable conversion", an apparent change of stance wholly at odds with where he says they thought he stood on the issue. In fact, as he pointed out this week, he has been advocating for a discussion on change for at least a year. Ironically, he says the media's erroneous perception has left him "too stunned . . . to be grumpy", in a column this week in which he sounds decidedly grumpy.

In that column, Dunne reiterated his view that drug policy should be "based on the principles of compassion, innovation and proportion". He said he had outlined those principles at a UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs meeting in Austria a year ago and that they were the foundation for the National Drug Policy he released for the Government in August last year.

Dunne is right to feel somewhat aggrieved. He has steadily expressed a moderate view on change for some time while it has been an issue soldiering along quietly in the background. Now, it is suddenly more newsworthy and finally on the radar of the media and the public.

What a realistic policy needs to do is remove the criminal element from the equation. This is why the Netherlands' policy on soft drugs has stumbled - Amsterdam's coffee shops may be able to sell up to 5 grams of cannabis per person per day but it remains illegal to produce, possess, sell, import and export drugs.

In Colorado, where regulated growers supply cannabis, anecdotal evidence suggests the new approach is working well. The legalisation was touted as saving taxpayers as much as US$10 billion a year in law enforcement.

Developing a new, balanced, comprehensive drug policy will be a complex undertaking. We should not rush to make changes but instead take the time to ensure we get it right.