I agree. Also, we should keep a sharp eye out to make sure he doesn’t stick his gum under the desk in the Oval Office.
Or in other words, what makes you think that:
I hope that he is using this period of (relative) lower stress between the campaign and taking office to quit. It usually takes at least three tries for a smoker to quit. The fictional President Bartlett on “The West Wing” smoked outside the Oval Office on a covered walkway leading to the residence, but I have no idea how closely that matches the real layout of the place.
What exactly is the law you are referring to? Does “public” mean “open to and accommodating the public” (e.g., your typical bar) or “owned by the government rather than private enterprise” (e.g., the White House and Air Force One, presumably)? It would seem to me laws of this sort are typically about the former, rather than the latter.
A quick search reveals that the Clintons banned smoking in the White House, but I don’t knw if that tradition has stuck (probably not, right?). I have no idea whether the White House is subject to the D.C. smoking ban. Congress apparently exempted itself.
If we are talking about smoking within the residential portion of the White House, then I suppose he would be bound by whatever rules apply to other people living in housing provided by the federal government to employees.
IANAPOTUS, but I have lived in housing paid for by the federal government and I do not recall any no smoking clause. If it is the office portion of the WH, then I imagine it is the same rules as are applied to other federal offices.
Say what you will about The Flying Dutchman (in some other forum besides GD…jeez…), but I personally wish I knew half as much about Canadian politics as he does about US politics.
Well, on one hand one question, the smoking, is speculative as it is not clear that it is even actually against any rule on Federal property, and if so likely to be a matter of merely an administrative rule. On the other hand, from what I gather, there is a clear law involved with respect to the campaign clothes.
Further in the first instance, this is clearly a trivial matter, whereas I suppose there is an argument about self-dealing and minor corrupt practise in the second.
I for one am a bit puzzled by the attention to the clothes, since they were paid for by private funds, but certainly election law is of a different level of importance than anti-smoking ordinances.