I'm back on drugs. The subject, that is. In the last issue of hotpress, in the context of a very interesting and entertaining interview, the Minister of State at the Department of Education, Willie O'Dea of Fianna Fail, admitted that he'd smoked cannabis. And his zany moustache notwithstanding, it was verifiable - on the evidence of the interview at least - that it had done him divil the bit of harm.

It was interesting that the admission scarcely gave rise to any comment in the media, or from politicians or police. Now, while it would be stretching it to suggest that the Minister was encouraging 'young people' to experiment with drugs, there is no doubt that his honesty was instructive in helping to put the whole issue of cannabis use into its correct perspective: that is, that it is not a serious issue at all. The reality is that thousands of people who are now prominent in public life in Ireland have tried the drug, and many of those have had pleasurable experiences with it. Journalists have used it. Politicians have used it. Priests have used it. Police have use it. And it has done them no harm, no harm at all.

While his primary brief relates to adult education, the second in command to the Minister for Education holds a particularly sensitive position in relation to teenagers. One might therefore have anticipated a bit of an outcry about the Minister being seen to even tacitly condone the notion of experimentation with cannabis. The very fact that this did not erupt confirms that there is a widespread acceptance of the reality of the situation: ordinary, decent folks do it all the time. Ain't a problem.

That outbreak of realism, in itself, is undoubtedly a healthy thing. However, it does suggest that there is a massive hypocrisy involved in our simultaneous acceptance of draconian legislation on the issue, and the resulting injustices which are routinely administered by our courts as a result. And some of these are worse than others. In fact, some of them are genuinely appalling.

Since Willie O'Dea made his refreshingly candid comments, the verdict was handed down in the latest instalment of the Veronica Guerin murder case. A lot of people were undoubtedly deeply upset when the accused, John Gilligan, was found not guilty of the murder. That kind of emotional response is understandable, in people who have been subjected to the terrible trauma of having someone close to them brutally terminated. However, the fact is that the court's decision, in this case, was the correct one. The evidence presented to them was not strong enough to convict Gilligan of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

However, Gilligan was also charged with the importation of cannabis, and he was found guilty on this lesser charge. So, what would be the appropriate sentence for someone convicted of this particular crime? Well, a small issue of timing aside, it is possible to speculate that at least one current member of the Dail might be numbered among the beneficiaries of the entrepeneurial activities for which Gilligan was being sentenced. For certain, we can say that dozens of people currently working within the court system - judges, barristers, solicitors and so on - have availed of Mr.Gilligan's merchandise, or that of others participating in the same illegal trade.

How big a crime is it then? Not a very big one at all. A sentence of five years might have been anticipated. Or if the judge was having a bad day, it could have gone up to ten. Or so you'd have thought. Instead, however, a sentence of 28 years was handed down, which was clearly wildly disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime.

This is not the first time that this has happened here. A couple of years back, Patrick Holland was also charged with both the murder of Veronica Guerin, and with an involvement in the importation of cannabis. In Holland's case, the evidence in relation to the cannabis charge was even less reliable than that which was used to indict Gilligan. However, like Gilligan, Holland was acquitted on the murder charge, but convicted of the sale of cannabis - and he was given a 17-year sentence.

In both cases, it is impossible avoid the conclusion that the men are being sentenced for more than the crimes of which they have been found guilty - that they are, in fact, also being punished vicariously for the crimes of which they have been acquitted. No matter how deeply opposed you are to the violent activities of gangsters, and no matter how honestly-held the conviction might be that it is necessary to bring to book those who take the law into their own hands, or believe they are above it, it is wrong and unsound and unjust to impose sentences that are disproportionate to the particular crime for which a specific individual has been convicted.

It is wrong, and - make no mistake - it brings the law and the courts irredeemably into disrepute.