Bio304 Unit 2 Research Paper
Homework 2 Workshop 2
Milagros Lorenzo
Ana G. Mendez University System
South Florida Campus
Bio304
Prof.
July , 2013
Whoever can and will freely decide that want to smoke, you can buy snuff and can consume freely without anyone prohibited. What happens is that no right can be unlimited. Every right has certain conditions as to time, place and other circumstances of its exercise primarily to make it compatible with the rights of others. The right to smoke is limited by the right to not smoke. And is this right, not smoking, which to date has not been recognized or respected. Until recently it has been understood that whoever wanted to smoke could do it anytime, anywhere, and that their right implied authority to bind
the other people who were around to suck the smoke out into the air exhaling . This means that the right of smokers to smoke meant to convert the rest of the population smoke. Although smokers are a minority, it seems that no more than a quarter of the population. Many people who not only wanted to breathe smoke snuff, but also have been assaulted by him because of the discomfort that originates (odor, irritation of the respiratory tract and eyes) and damage to health resulting , we have often been forced to become passive smokers against our will . It is true that in recent years have been approved that have restrictive rules limiting the places where you can smoke and harming the health of those who must share the same air and do not want to breathe the smoke. Fortunately it has been banning smoking in places of study or work in health centers or public transport. Now with a state law finally generally acknowledged smoking the right not to have the majority of citizens from the minority that has been systematically imposing the obligation to breathe smoke in shared spaces. Of course, this law passed with broad political consensus and has extensive social support including many smokers aware of the limits of their rights is under attack by those who are not resigned to losing the ability to continue to abuse the patience of the majority. Some say it is a law unduly harsh. I think not, because it still leaves many possibilities for Smoking not only them (which I can do not always share the same air with others) bind smoking but those around them. It is often argued against the law prohibitive rules are excessive, that there is a persecution of smokers, and that these issues should be resolved with greater tolerance among all. It is perfectly captious arguments. If all smokers were persons of exquisite manners, never light a cigarette without asking all those around you if you bother, if never smoked without being expressly authorized to do so, if you never smoke in the presence of children, sick or signs would pray they do not, if your cigars immediately offered at the time warned that someone is upset or that the environment is charging, if coupled with the lighter in his pocket always carry an ashtray and never throw ashes or cigarette butts on the ground or were deposited in the ashtrays, plates or cups that others must deal with collect and clean, if they were never passed by the imagination smoking near flammable substances, if ever attending such human agglomerations carrying a lighted cigar pointing the other for make sure that if someone is burned lest the carrier but his neighbor ... If smokers to behave that way, it would require prohibitive rules.
References www.google.com www.salud.com
Milagros Lorenzo
Ana G. Mendez University System
South Florida Campus
Bio304
Prof.
July , 2013
Whoever can and will freely decide that want to smoke, you can buy snuff and can consume freely without anyone prohibited. What happens is that no right can be unlimited. Every right has certain conditions as to time, place and other circumstances of its exercise primarily to make it compatible with the rights of others. The right to smoke is limited by the right to not smoke. And is this right, not smoking, which to date has not been recognized or respected. Until recently it has been understood that whoever wanted to smoke could do it anytime, anywhere, and that their right implied authority to bind
the other people who were around to suck the smoke out into the air exhaling . This means that the right of smokers to smoke meant to convert the rest of the population smoke. Although smokers are a minority, it seems that no more than a quarter of the population. Many people who not only wanted to breathe smoke snuff, but also have been assaulted by him because of the discomfort that originates (odor, irritation of the respiratory tract and eyes) and damage to health resulting , we have often been forced to become passive smokers against our will . It is true that in recent years have been approved that have restrictive rules limiting the places where you can smoke and harming the health of those who must share the same air and do not want to breathe the smoke. Fortunately it has been banning smoking in places of study or work in health centers or public transport. Now with a state law finally generally acknowledged smoking the right not to have the majority of citizens from the minority that has been systematically imposing the obligation to breathe smoke in shared spaces. Of course, this law passed with broad political consensus and has extensive social support including many smokers aware of the limits of their rights is under attack by those who are not resigned to losing the ability to continue to abuse the patience of the majority. Some say it is a law unduly harsh. I think not, because it still leaves many possibilities for Smoking not only them (which I can do not always share the same air with others) bind smoking but those around them. It is often argued against the law prohibitive rules are excessive, that there is a persecution of smokers, and that these issues should be resolved with greater tolerance among all. It is perfectly captious arguments. If all smokers were persons of exquisite manners, never light a cigarette without asking all those around you if you bother, if never smoked without being expressly authorized to do so, if you never smoke in the presence of children, sick or signs would pray they do not, if your cigars immediately offered at the time warned that someone is upset or that the environment is charging, if coupled with the lighter in his pocket always carry an ashtray and never throw ashes or cigarette butts on the ground or were deposited in the ashtrays, plates or cups that others must deal with collect and clean, if they were never passed by the imagination smoking near flammable substances, if ever attending such human agglomerations carrying a lighted cigar pointing the other for make sure that if someone is burned lest the carrier but his neighbor ... If smokers to behave that way, it would require prohibitive rules.
References www.google.com www.salud.com