Pubdate: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 Source: Tahoe Daily Tribune (CA) Copyright: 2002 Tahoe-Carson Area Newspapers Contact: http://www.mapinc.org/media/443 Website: http://td.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage Note: This race will be decided in a runoff on Nov. 5, 2002 OUR VIEW Compared with the sheriff's race, the contest for El Dorado County district attorney has been pretty low-profile. That doesn't make it any less important. Three candidates are seeking the job, only two of whom merit serious consideration. The dark horse in this race, Dale Schafer, has built his campaign upon cannabis. That's not an appropriate platform for the county's top law enforcement officer. If pot isn't a platform, however, it certainly qualifies as a valid issue for criminal defendants and law enforcement. Hundreds of county residents have obtained physician clearances to use medicinal marijuana under terms of Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act. Cops and prosecutors have struggled to sort potheads from legitimate patients. Deputy District Attorney Erik Schlueter, who's challenging two-term District Attorney Gary Lacy, thinks clear guidelines should be adopted as they have in other California counties. Lacy hopes to establish an advisory panel of doctors to help define what qualifies as "medicinal." Lacy's approach is interesting but unworkable. It presumes physicians can reach consensus on the legal use of an illegal drug. Since the U.S. government isn't a big fan of cannabis research, not to mention doctors who prescribe marijuana, such consensus may be a long time in coming. Schlueter is rightly critical of Lacy's "delay tactic," saying medical marijuana users are "scared spitless" of law enforcement and the DA's office. That's not necessarily a bad thing, given the number of bozos out there carrying doctor's slips with their stash. But for all the flaws of Prop. 215, it makes no sense to sit on the sidelines for years while appellate courts sort out the mess. That issue aside, there isn't much difference between Lacy and Schlueter. Both are no-nonsense types who support the death penalty and aggressive prosecution of "three strikes" cases. Both know the county's criminal landscape and the social problems that contribute to crime. Schlueter takes Lacy to task for "micromanaging" prosecutors and for his seven-year drought between trials. He suggests a political motive in Lacy's decision to handle the case of a 9-year-old girl killed last year in South Lake Tahoe. Schlueter says he'd be more proactive than Lacy, especially on social issues and community involvement, and he pledges to continue his trial work while spending one week a month in Tahoe. Schlueter is sincere in thinking he can do better than Lacy, and his skills and experience back him up. He would, no doubt, make an excellent DA. We're giving our endorsement to Lacy anyway. Here's why: - -- Medical marijuana is a complex issue that shouldn't be a litmus test for public office. Lacy is not alone in his reluctance to establish Prop. 215 guidelines (or loopholes) for marijuana users. We think his approach is counterproductive but that's not good enough reason to vote him out. - -- Management styles differ according to personality. One supervisor's "hands-on approach" can easily be viewed as "micromanagement" by staff. Lacy has a self-confident style that borders on arrogance, an occupational hazard among lawyers, and it wouldn't hurt to loosen his tie a bit. But the DA's office is hardly a divided camp; in fact, it's running pretty smoothly. - -- Lacy scored political points by taking the Tahoe murder case but his larger motivation, we feel, is to make sure the job gets done right. In fact, we expect nothing less from our top prosecutor. Unlike the sheriff's race, which lacks an incumbent, the DA's race features a candidate who can stand on his record while in office. The question as Lacy seeks a third term is not whether he's perfect but whether he's been doing a good job. The answer to that question, quite simply, is yes. Lacy should be re-elected. - --- MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk