But we agree far more than you acknowledge. I disagree with the state requiring restaurants to post fat grams on menus and the like. I also disagree with the many warnings that must by law be posted..."The State of California has determined this building contains hot air" for example.

Where we disagree is your definition of the government meddling in personal behavior.

I am legally allowed to smoke. Goodness only knows how much money the government gives to the tobacco industry that is then used to encourage me to do so. The government is not restricting my freedom to smoke.

It is balancing the needs of others to be free from secondhand smoke. A legitimate health concern.

I can restrict people from smoking in my home -- and I do although I provide smoking accomodations outside for parties and the like. Why shouldn't the government be allowed to restrict smoking in it "houses?"

Furthermore, the White House is also a museum. Secondhand smoke is very damaging to artwork and antiques. So there are further legimimate reasons for prohibiting smoking there.

To call EVERY restriction the government makes a nanny rule is nonsensical. It is a nanny state if I am restricted from driving at 100 mph through a neighborhood?

I didn't know Andy Rooney had announced his retirement yet.