Some people believe that it is the responsibility of individuals to take care of their own health and diet. Others however believe that governments should make sure that their citizens have a healthy diet. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

The

health

and well being of its citizens is one of the most important priorities of any nation's

government

.A healthy population leads to prosperity and development of a country.Given that, any state should make sure that the people are following the best practices to maintain good

health

and

diet

and

also

provide them

health

care in case they get ill.Contrary to that some people believe that one should be responsible for his own well being and not burden the union with the additional costs of providing

health

care to its citizens. There are merits to both the arguments.People who believe that the

government

should make sure that their citizens have a healthy

diet

are right because it ensures that everyone will be in reasonably good

health

than if they were making their own dietary choices.The citizens of a country are crucial to developing a country and as

such

a

government

cannot and should not let them become unproductive due to mundane reasons like illness which could have been prevented with proper precautionary measures On the flip side, some people are

also

correct in saying that it is the responsibility of individuals to take care of their own

health

and

diet

.

This

might stem from a popular idea that everyone is responsible for their own lives and not for others' and as result any successes

,

Accept space

,

failures

,

Accept space

,

mishaps and illnesses are a result of a person's actions.People who support

this

idea

also

raise a valid concern of giving the state the power to control the

diet

of the people, they fear that once

this

flood gate is opened the

government

will slowly accumulate more and more power until it has complete control over its citizens.

Moreover

the supporters of said argument

also

raise a very valid and genuine concern of the finances

:

Accept space

:

"Where will the funds for

such

a program come from?" To conclude, I would state my opinion as somewhere in between these 2 extremes.I support the freedom of choice espoused by the

second

group

,

Accept space

,

but at the same time I

also

understand where proponents of the

first

group are coming from.So I would propose a middle ground where the state will not restrict its citizens' access to junk food

,

Accept space

,

but will

instead

launch a relentless public campaign to highlight the damaging effects of these food items.

This

would give the people a choice which would

also

satisfy the

second

group's supporters