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.