Lefty pothead writers too busy making CheezWhiz sandwiches to defend their filthy habit?

In recent weeks, David Brooks, Joe Scarborough and Tina Brown have all written about marijuana's threats to -- respectively -- character development, intelligence and our ability to compete with the Chinese.

What's surprising is the absence of a strong response from the progressive sphere. Sure, the Internet is awash with essays promoting the benefits of legalization, and far-left pubs like The Nation have taken up the issue. But -- and readers, please correct me if I'm wrong -- we have yet to see a resounding response from pundits' of a higher caliber. Paul Krugman hasn't countered Brooks; Rachel Maddow hasn't challenged Scarborough -- I'm not quite sure which big-name magazine editor wants to take up Tina Brown's debate. I'm not even sure where the Krugmans and Maddows stand on marijuana legalization -- but that's sort of the point.

Why the relative radio silence? Perhaps because outside of Colorado and Washington State, it's hard to come to marijuana's defense without outing yourself as a pothead -- or at least an occasional practitioner. That shouldn't be the case. The pros and cons of marijuana legalization can be covered as sober-mindedly as any policy issue, from gay marriage to health insurance to unemployment benefits. Come to think of it, it'd be a great subject for Ezra Klein, but his Wonkblog team hasn't really addressed it last summer, and he has yet to take a real deep dive into how legalization -- and subsequent economic growth, arrest rate declines, etc -- would affect the economy.