Should People Be Allowed To Smoke In Public ?
Options
Replies
-
I also think that there shouldn't be smoking allowed on the patio's of restaurants that have outdoor seating. I understand the smoking ban in restaurants and bars -- a ban which I absolutely think is the greatest thing that ever was put into law -- and I think it should extend to the patio. It is, after all, part of the restaurant.
Well the smoking ban was for indoors... it should be up to the restaurant. I know several bars in and around NYC have opened patio bars for smokers. Those places are often packed with people having a good time.0 -
I used to think it should be up to the individual establishment whether they wanted to be smoke free or not. Then Ohio made all restaurants, etc smoke free and I love it now. I don't have to worry about inhaling others' carcinogens. I hate going to other states that don't have a smoking ban because the smell of cigarette smoke is so much worse now that I don't have to smell it all the time.
Just today my husband and I were riding in his Jeep with the top off. The drivers in the cars in front of us and in back of us were smoking. They had their windows rolled down and their cigarettes outside the car (I guess they don't want their cars to stink of smoke). We were in a smoke fog waiting at a red light. It was awful.0 -
In my opinion, it should be up to the establishment to choose if their place is smoking or non-smoking. People can vote with their dollar. I don't see how the government can tell people what they can or can't do (within reason) in a building / business they own. Sounds like a little too much government involvement with businesses.
Because, via Medicare, the government reimburses all hospitals for medical bills incurred by uninsured patients. This racks up in the billions each year for patients such as diabetics, cancer patients, COPD patients, etc. As long as the government has to pay for it, the government is going to have a say in whether you can do it.
Then why be selective, government? If they have to cover diabetics, cancer patients, people with heart disease, why isn't there an incentive for staying in shape, within a certain BMI range, under a certain weight, at a certain level of physical fitness and eating whatever the government says is "real" food? I think my problem is that they're picking and choosing which vices to enforce. Let's be real for a second: alcohol. We won't restrict alcohol? We will restrict marijuana and prostitution. And cigarettes. But alcohol doesn't cause in harm? Doesn't cause people to wind up in hospitals? Doesn't cause a slew of other problems?
Alcohol and obesity account for plenty of our nation being in the hospital with the taxpayer / government covering their costs.
It's already happening, with increasing tax levies on alcohol. Most insurance companies are offering two different rates, with the lower rate offered to those people with a BMI and cholesterol level within acceptable ranges, and those who don't smoke.
Fair enough. I don't really see the tax levies you're referring to, but maybe I don't buy enough alcohol. I was asking about what the government, the people who outlawed indoor smoking, was doing. For insurance companies, that's all well and good. But they aren't (supposed to be) a reflection of our national character and morals the way that laws are, such as smoking ban laws.
But you did respond, so there's that.0 -
@ mccindy
I guess I will just quote the journal... To mitigate the other pollutants and factors associated with your Stance on COPD is IMO reckless of a health professional.
"COPD and asthma
COPD is currently the fourth leading cause of death in the world, and a further increase in its prevalence and related rates of death is expected in the coming decades.22 COPD is a progressive disorder that encompasses chronic bronchitis and emphysema and is characterized by airflow limitation that is not fully reversible. It is also associated with an abnormal inflammatory response of the lungs to noxious particles or gases, among which cigarette smoking is by far the most important.22 COPD, particularly in the form of emphysema, is typically associated with weight loss and muscle wasting; these phenomena usually occur in advanced disease and are associated with increased rates of death.23,24 The factors responsible for weight loss and muscle wasting in emphysema are currently being investigated. A state of low-grade systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, negative energy balance and hypoxemia are among those proposed.25
Overweight or obesity is usually seen with chronic bronchitis rather than with emphysema, although this distinction is not always the rule.26 There is evidence that patients with COPD lead a more sedentary lifestyle, which would contribute to the development of obesity: a case–control study revealed that elderly patients with COPD walked an average of 44 minutes per day, whereas healthy control patients walked 81 minutes per day (p < 0.001).27 Alternatively, obesity may modify the clinical picture of COPD, although there is little research on this complex issue. For example, exercise intolerance, a hallmark of COPD, is likely to be worsened by fat accumulation. However, based on the observation that a BMI greater than 24 kg/m2 is associated with better survival, it has been proposed that obesity could be protective in COPD.28,29 In one large epidemiologic study, overweight and obesity in patients with COPD was associated with a decreased risk of death compared with normal weight (hazard ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7–1.0).30 Although in the general population excess weight increases the risk of death, overweight and obesity are, paradoxically, associated with better outcomes in some chronic diseases. This phenomenon is well characterized in patients with heart failure31 and is referred to as the obesity paradox. However, the notion that fat accumulation is protective in COPD may be an oversimplification that neglects the potential consequences of obesity in this disease. It is worth noting that an increased BMI does not protect against fat-free mass depletion in COPD, since there is a preferential loss of muscle tissue in this disease.32 In fact, muscle mass may be reduced despite a normal BMI.32 Furthermore, a reduced muscle mass is associated with increased rates of death, irrespective of BMI.24,30,33 In a further compounding of the potentially significant interactions between COPD and obesity, COPD is now recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, increasing the risk of these diseases 2–3-fold, independent of traditional risk factors such as hypertension, dyslipidemia and smoking.34,35 Given the current epidemics of obesity and COPD, their concurrent association will increase in the future. Further studies are required to provide a better understanding of the impact of obesity in COPD and vice versa.
Asthma, a chronic inflammatory disorder of airways, is associated with reversible airway obstruction and increased airway responsiveness to a variety of stimuli. However, longstanding asthma can also lead to airflow limitation that is not fully reversible.36 The presence of atopy, a greater reversibility of the airflow limitation after inhalation of β2-agonists, and smoking history are helpful in differentiating asthma from COPD.
Obesity was shown to be epidemiologically associated with respiratory symptoms in the 1980s.37 Although parallel increases in the prevalence of obesity and asthma in Western countries have been reported, it remains to be determined whether this association is causal or by chance.38 Although obesity may simply be a marker of recently adopted lifestyle habits also associated with asthma, several specific mechanisms can be proposed for their association,39 and it is now recognized that a causal relation may exist between them.40–42 The association between asthma and obesity is particularly worrisome in children.43 The obesity epidemic may lead to an increase in the number of young adults with severe asthma since obesity is a predictor of unremitting asthma after puberty44 and worse asthma control.45
Conflicting results regarding the nature of the association between obesity and asthma may be attributed to different study designs46 and misclassification of wheeze or asthma. For instance, Schachter and colleagues reported an association between obesity and a clinical diagnosis of asthma, whereas no such relation was found between obesity and increased airway responsiveness.47 The perception of dyspnea is often increased in obesity, and a diagnosis of asthma may be erroneously made in this setting.16
In the presence of obesity, the mechanical properties of the respiratory system are profoundly modified. Reduced tidal lung expansion compromises the dilating forces that maintain the patency of the airways and may lead to greater contractile responses of the airway smooth muscle.11,48 This can potentially cause increased airway responsiveness. Supporting this contention is our recent report of a suppression of the protective effect of deep inspiration on airway closure in nonasthmatic obese patients.49
Fat tissue produces a plethora of inflammatory mediators, which suggests an immunologic link between obesity and asthma.50,51 This hypothesis is substantiated by the presence of increased concentrations of C-reactive protein, tumour necrosis factor-α and interleukin-6 in the serum of obese subjects. Increased leptin secretion in obesity may be specifically involved in the development of asthma by modulating airway inflammation.52 Conversely, reduction in adiponectin secretion, an anti-inflammatory cytokine, is another potential link between obesity and asthma.53
The interaction between BMI and asthma is stronger in women than men, and thus it has been suggested that increased levels of female sex hormones may play a role in the increased prevalence of asthma among obese women.41,54 Estrogens may modulate the immune response and increase the risk of asthma.42 These findings are particularly relevant in obesity, where enhanced aromatization of testosterone to estrogens by the adipose tissue and decreased sex hormone-binding globulin levels may result in greater estrogen tissue availability.42 However, the interaction between estrogens and airway inflammation in asthma has yet to be fully explored.
Genetic factors may also play a role in the relation between obesity and asthma. Obesity genes may influence a patient's susceptibility to asthma in several ways: several candidate genes have been linked to both asthma and obesity; candidate obesity genes are clustered in proximity to chromosomal regions that have been associated with asthma; and candidate genes for obesity may encode protein products such as inflammatory mediators that could be directly involved in the pathogenesis of asthma.42 This topic also requires further study.
Evaluation of COPD and asthma in obesity
COPD and asthma should be considered in any patient presenting with chronic cough, sputum production, wheeze or dyspnea, especially if the person has risk factors such as smoking or having frequent exposure to allergens. In this situation, spirometric testing should be part of the clinical assessment. Patients with COPD typically show a persistent decrease in FEV1 (e.g., FEV1 < 80% predicted) and FVC together with an FEV1/FVC ratio less than 70%. Asthma is characterized by airflow obstruction that varies in severity either spontaneously or with treatment. In contrast to COPD, in which airflow obstruction is persistent, most patients with asthma have normal lung function when adequate treatment is received. Methacholine challenges can be used to demonstrate airway hyperresponsiveness and to confirm clinical suspicion of asthma when spirometry test results are normal.
Therapeutic implications of obesity for COPD and asthma
Weight reduction is undoubtedly the optimal health strategy for obese patients with chronic respiratory disease. Approaches to weight loss and weight-loss maintenance have been summarized in various evidence-based reports.5 In general, therapy comprising diet, physical activity and medication promote a moderate degree of weight or fat loss in the short term. However, the results of studies with long-term follow-up are disappointing because most patients regain some or most of their excess weight. No specific recommendations exist about weight-loss strategies in the presence of respiratory disease. This is not a trivial issue, since patients with chronic respiratory disease are often inactive and therefore often do not comply with the recommendation to increase their levels of physical activity. Incorporating pulmonary rehabilitation and exercise training strategies may therefore help patients begin to exercise, but the efficacy of these approaches in achieving weight loss has not been documented.
The impact of weight reduction on dyspnea, exercise tolerance and quality of life in obese or overweight patients with COPD has not been examined in the literature. In fact, most studies focus on undernourished patients with COPD. With asthma, weight loss has been shown to improve lung function and symptoms, independent of changes in airway hyper-responsiveness.55–57 One study that involved 58 obese women, 24 of whom had asthma, demonstrated that for every 10% relative loss of weight, FVC improved by 92 mL (p = 0.05) and the FEV1 improved by 73 mL (p = 0.04).55 A small randomized trial of the effects of a weight reduction program on obese patients with asthma also showed that an 11% reduction in body weight was associated with a 7.6% improvement in FEV1 compared with the control group (p = 0.02).56 There is no published evidence of whether therapeutic approaches to COPD or asthma (e.g., inhalation therapy, education and rehabilitation) should be modified in the presence of obesity. However, our experience suggests that the response of obese patients with asthma to pharmacotherapy is often suboptimal, a clinical impression supported by the association between obesity and poor asthma control.58 Additional studies are required to confirm whether obesity modulates the response to inhalation therapy."
source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1435949/0 -
LOL It has EVERYTHING to do with the government. They won't outlaw them because they get ridiculous tax revenue from them for one thing.Frankly, I dislike smoking a great deal. However, I am opposed to smoking bans. We have too many rules. This country was founded on freedom, not rules. People need to have freedom and choices. If we go around making everyone's choices for them, or allowing the government to make those choices for us - we will end up not being able to make choices, nor will we have choices to make.
Ah the government is such a fickle topic.
But GENERALLY speaking smoking causes cancer. Its a health risk. Government should stand up and PROTECT its people by getting tobacco off the streets.
Without going into all the facts of teenagers using, children dying of second hand smoke, and even smokers themselves being effected greatly, I think someone should regulate the rules of tobacco.
The government should mind it's own business and not protect people. We're not 4 yrs old and need protecting. If a person goes into a store and buys a pack of smokes, they know exactly what they are getting into. It's their choice to smoke and it's their choice to quit.
I'm not someone who cares if someone is smoking outside or in areas where smoking is permitted, if I don't like it, I can leave. But I'm not about to say make something I dislike illegal.
Children are dying from stupidity, should we shoot all the stupid people? Who makes that distinction?
It's easy to make general sweeping statements about something that doesn't affect you. It's like saying the government should step in and protect obese people from themselves, so if you are over a certain weight according to some chart, you need to be shipped off to fat camp for your own good, and you should lose your children because you're setting a bad example for them.
Be an adult, make your own choices, let other make theirs.
You're correct about making your own choices. But KIDS who are getting cigarettes from their friend who happens to be 18 and know no better . Or parents who smoke around their children. No one is there to protect them from the choices being made around them.
We have so MANY "stupid" people breeding to not have the government.
These things do effect everyone. Smoking effects EVERYONE. Why should people who make the CHOICE not to smoke have to endure it because others CHOOSE to smoke in public?
Drugs are outlawed...how's that whole government cracking down thing working there? Kids are getting it from kids.
There are much bigger fish to fry than smoking. And no, the government stepping in is not the answer. It was never meant to be the answer. It was never designed to be the answer...at least not in the United States. However, there are plenty of other countries a person can move to if they want that kind of government ruling.
Absolutely there are other fish to fry but this is what you responded to in the topic.
Yes drugs are outlawed. But people still get them. I highly doubt kids would smoke if they didn't already have them prepackaged and handed to them like candy. You don't see a lot of 14yrs old who can roll a zig zag.
I really think if they stopped making cigarettes that would solve the problem. Which has nothing to do with the government.
I'm a former smoker. Yes, people should be allowed to smoke in public in designated spaces. Also, "outside" in general.0 -
In my opinion, it should be up to the establishment to choose if their place is smoking or non-smoking. People can vote with their dollar. I don't see how the government can tell people what they can or can't do (within reason) in a building / business they own. Sounds like a little too much government involvement with businesses.
Ok fine but then the establishment that decides they're going to allow people to smoke at their desk is discriminating against those who don't smoke. Also they're really narrowing down the people who are going to work there. If I go for an interview and I'm told up front that this is a smoking place and you either deal with it or move on I'm going to move on and find a place that's smoke free. I don't smoke (I'm actually an ex-smoker) and I shouldn't be subjected to second hand smoke.
I'm actually very happy that there is a smoking ban in restaurants, bars, clubs . . . everywhere. Now I can go out and not feel like I smoked a carton of cigarettes the next day. I don't have to lock my clothes in another room because of the smell or take a shower before I go to bed because the smell of smoke is imbedded in my skin and hair. When I go out to a club I don't have to play "dodge the cigarette" on the dance floor and hope I don't get burned or worry that I'm going to come home with a big burn hole in my outfit.0 -
I think you shouldn't be able to smoke in any public area unless it's been specifically ok'd for smoking.
Walking past someone smoking in the park and having to chow down on that smoke isn't right.
^^^ I have terrible asthma and chemical sensitivity. Inhaling smoke makes me sick and wheezy. It's not cool! I hold my breath when walking past people smoking, but sometimes you can't get away from it.0 -
Would it really worry you if that business wasn't able to hire employees? That's not really your problem, it's theirs. And if that policy caused them to not have employees (and not make money), then don't you think they would change it? Same with smoking in restaurants / bars. If it drove all of their customers away, don't you think they would make changes?
I'm glad that smoking bans have worked out for you, personally. I'm happy for your clothes and hair.0 -
I am all for freedom and for the government staying out of your choices, but when the consequences of your choice are put on other people who didn't have any say in the matter then those people should be protected. You want to smoke fine. But everyone else around you shouldn't be forced to breathe in your smoke. You want to get drunk, fine but don't get in a car and potentially endanger other people's lives.
Individuals always have a say .. I do not smoke , think it is putrid to be honest , but I can up and leave anytime I want or choose to enter establishments that have smokers or non smokers... In a Capitalistic Society if there is such a strong demand ( a Niche ) for non smoking only establishments it could have been done and been very profitable... There are always solutions outside our government to deal with the majority of social issues, but for some they feel infringing on the rights of those they do not agree with or subscribe makes more sense, I am not one of those people!
p.s. Sync ... there are many worse carcinogens in the city air most of us breath everyday ... and 2nd hand smoke should be the least of your worries ...
Absolutely correct! I'm an ex smoker and personally cannot stand the smoke now but I would never tell a smoker that they couldn't smoke around me in a public area. In AZ they have a law that you cannot smoke within 20 feet of a doorway when in public and that's far enough that the general public doesn't have to be exposed to smoke. The only limitation I would be ok with putting on smokers in public is that they not be allowed to smoke in public parks, specifically ones designed for children with playground equipment and such. Otherwise I feel like if you don't want to smell the smoke, then move, that's what I do.0 -
^^^^ This
Also, the long term dangers of 2nd hand smoke have yet to be proven conclusively. Seeing a commercial telling you otherwise does not qualify as a scientific study.
To answer the question by the OP: Yes, people should be allowed to smoke in public. Tobacco products are NOT illegal. I don't enjoy the smell of cigarette smoke, but that doesn't mean I should prevent someone else from doing it.
Everyone knows it's unhealthy, yet some still choose to do so. That's not my problem, if they make that choice. If you don't like the smell, then avoid that space.
Incidentally, restaurants, bars, hotels, businesses, back yards, etc are not public spaces. They are private property and can be utilized by the owner as they deem fit.0 -
I don't think it should be illegal, but I do think people could stand to be more considerate when partaking in a habit such as smoking.
So you feel the people you intentionally try to make feel awful, your words, should be more considerate towards you?
When you say more considerate are you saying that they should shower between smoking just in case you are knocked up and we might meet in an elevator?
I'm not knocked up, but it still affects me. So if you just came in from a smoke break, don't be surprised when I splatter puke all over your shoes. I guess if you don't like those consequences, you can do whatever you want in between smoking to prevent that possibility.
There are a lot of meat smells that will make me harf. However, I can control myself for the few minutes it takes to get to my floor in the elevator. You are being purposefully rude to people because you don't like the way they smell, surely if you are that offended these are people that you are just seeing casually, checking out at a store, or like you said in an elevator, so you can't be curteous for a few seconds, minutes at most? But everyone else should bowed down and respect your nose? You are delusional. I get the second hand smoke, I'm considerate when I'm smoking, but there is not much I can do about the smell that comes in on my clothes, other than load myself down with perfume and that's just as bad. And you know honestly, I don't really care, I don't like the smell either, but it's my habit. I don't like the smell of a lot of things, but I would never intentionally try to hurt someone because I don't like their smell, or their look or anything else that is so petty.
For random encounters, yeah, I can breathe in and out of my mouth for those few seconds.
I have several family members that smoke, and I refuse to go into their house, give them hugs or kisses, or ride in their car. It's not about trying to be hurtful. It's about knowing my limits.
It's their right to smoke and smell like a stale ashtray. If you don't care about that, then fine, don't care.0 -
Incidentally, restaurants, bars, hotels, businesses, back yards, etc are not public spaces. They are private property and can be utilized by the owner as they deem fit.
I don't know if that's true. I don't think owners can opt for a smoking friendly environment unless they are a tobacconist.0 -
If murder and suicide are wrong then why do we permit smoking in public? Next thing you know we'll be allowing people to mow down pedestrians with cars and spray schools with bullets, leading to the downfall of civilization as we know it, the kicking of small puppies, and the failure to water house plants.0
-
I hate smoking. I hate the smell, the taste, the affects. So I'm going to say no.
does that mean I can ban certain perfumes I dont like? i like this open trade
perfumes don't kill people.
Show me the research to back this up.... I would argue a lung full of perfume is MUCH worse on your body then a lung full of smoke.
You can't be serious. I can fill you up with pages of COPD research, if you'd like but it's really unnecessary. Seriously, it's the THIRD LARGEST KILLER in the US right now, and will move to second within a few years. And is almost exclusively caused by cigarette smoke. And you want to try to claim perfume could be as bad? C'mon, now.
I hate to quote someone from page 7 not knowing if this has already been addressed in the next 4 or 5 pages, but I'm doing it anyway because I'm afraid I'll lose my place.
I have serious doubts about your claim that COPD is caused primarily by cigarette smoke and that COPD is the fastest growing disease (that part is from one of your previous posts) and that it will soon move from the number 3 killer to the number 2 killer. How do you reconcile your claims with the fact that cigarette smoking has been rapidly declining over the last couple decades?
I smell BS.0 -
I don't mind if people smoke in open places that are downwind, but I prefer that they not smoke around me or upwind of me just because I'm actually very allergic to smoke, as is my best friend. If I get too close to it, I can't breathe, and I rather like being able to breathe.
0 -
I'm glad about our law that forbids smoking in bars, clubs, and restaurants these days. It works perfectly for those of us, who don't smoke and don't want to inhale it passively. The smokers have their spots outside next to the entrance.
ETA
I do wish people would clean up their cigarette butts, though, rather than just throw them all over and forcing tax payers to pay someone to clean up after their lazy *kitten*.0 -
I'm glad about our law that forbids smoking in bars, clubs, and restaurants these days. It works perfectly for those of us, who don't smoke and don't want to inhale it passively. The smokers have their spots outside next to the entrance.
ETA
I do wish people would clean up their cigarette butts, though, rather than just throw them all over and forcing tax payers to pay someone to clean up after their lazy *kitten*.
When you say "forcing tax payers" are you referring to the parking lot attendant paid by the company they work for, or the prisoners who are working road crews picking up trash who would just be sitting in a cell mooching off tax payer money anyway? Or could you be referring to street sweepers who would be out street sweeping regardless if there were cigarette butts on the ground or not?
I'm confused as to how anyone is "forcing tax payers" to pay specifically for someone to go out and ignore all other forms of trash and debris (regardless if someone tossed it on the ground or if wind and/or water has moved it from one location to another) and solely focus on cigarette butts.0 -
I'm glad about our law that forbids smoking in bars, clubs, and restaurants these days. It works perfectly for those of us, who don't smoke and don't want to inhale it passively. The smokers have their spots outside next to the entrance.
ETA
I do wish people would clean up their cigarette butts, though, rather than just throw them all over and forcing tax payers to pay someone to clean up after their lazy *kitten*.
<<<Confirmed non-smoker here. I go to bars (in OK people are still allowed to smoke in them) If the smoke gets to be too much I step outside for a few minutes...or simply leave. My choice.
I do hate seeing cigarette butts thrown on the ground. Wish more establishments provided outdoor ashtrays, then maybe there wouldn't be so many on the ground.0 -
I hate smoking. I hate the smell, the taste, the affects. So I'm going to say no.
does that mean I can ban certain perfumes I dont like? i like this open trade
perfumes don't kill people.
Show me the research to back this up.... I would argue a lung full of perfume is MUCH worse on your body then a lung full of smoke.
You can't be serious. I can fill you up with pages of COPD research, if you'd like but it's really unnecessary. Seriously, it's the THIRD LARGEST KILLER in the US right now, and will move to second within a few years. And is almost exclusively caused by cigarette smoke. And you want to try to claim perfume could be as bad? C'mon, now.
Please show me your stats , since you like throwing them out there... From the CDC you will not get any that are not from 2011, it takes them over 3 years to get any stats done.... Cancer is the # 2 cause of deaths, in which Lung Cancer made up less than 1/3 of cancer deaths with 156,953. Now about 28,000 of those were to Non smokers in which approximately 20,000 were from Radon and between 3-4,000 possibly from second hand smoke contact.... So there are the most recent stats from 2011 from the CDC... Refined sugar and obesity are far greater issues than smoking and if you want to talk about the second hand smoke stats and put it in perspective over over 3,330 deaths occurred in the same year 2011 by distracted drivers, with the #1 distraction cell phones and Texting, and those numbers are going up... So if your argument is that it kills any more than other things we come across in everyday life YOU ARE WRONG! ... I am not am not a Smoker, do not like it , and have dated one woman who was and broke up because I could not stand kissing her with smoker breath, but I am not about people right to choose being restricted by those who do not partake or agree with whatever the activity, including walking away from things they do not like.
here is the last link to the CDC, and it is pretty easy to look up the rest , so knock yourself out .... Did not see any thing on perfume killing but was not looking for that as this was to show how people exaggerate when talking stats...
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/distracted_driving/
CVS stopped selling cigarettes in all of their nation wide stores. This makes me happy.
but they are going to sell marijuana in their pharmacy... they wont sell tobacco leaf aka cigars but they will sell that hypocrisy at its best
Marijuana isn't deadly, doesn't cause cancer, and actually has health benefits... soooo...
didnt dispute that. just the hypicracy. BTW studies have been done to show the positive effects of smoking tobacco as well. One of which is reduced stress levels a primary component of heart disease
It's so obvious what you're selling already. Don't be ridiculous too. :noway:0 -
Luckily for everyone, smoking tobacco is on the decline. Hopefully, the decline continues and once the smokers die off, no one will have to deal with it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions