David Sirota asks why it is socially acceptable for Lance Armstrong to hawk alcohol, which the International Journal of Cancer estimates causes "roughly one in 30 of the world's cancer cases":

[L]ess than a year after Phelps was crucified for merely smoking weed in private, few noticed or protested the planet's most famous cancer survivor becoming the public face of a possible carcinogen. "Apparently, it’s perfectly acceptable for a world-class athlete to endorse a substance like alcohol that contributes to thousands of deaths each year, as well as hundreds of thousands of violent crimes and injuries," says Mason Tvert, a co-author of the new book "Marijuana Is Safer." "Yet a world-class athlete like Michael Phelps is ridiculed, punished and forced to apologize for marijuana, the use of which contributes to zero deaths, and has never been linked to violent or reckless behavior. Why the double standard?"

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.