<p>Hello! This is a slightly unconventional essay I wrote for the below topic. I'd appreciate any and all advice on how to improve my essay style in general.
Also, if someone could tell me how this would score, that would be great.</p>
<p>*Assignment: Should the government be responsible for making sure people live healthy lives?
*
The actions of any government should be in the best interests of its citizens. In the case of individual health, however, this seemingly clear-cut principle becomes nebulous. Democracy demands that individual liberties be preserved and never infringed upon, but citizens deleterious choices seem to argue otherwise. Nevertheless, a government should take responsibility for the health of its citizens, as the</p>
<p>The foremost argument preventing legislation that would ensure more salutary choices involves the removal of individual rights. The United States in particular, since its inception, has held democratic ideals sacrosanct. The idea of restricting personal freedoms seems abhorrent and perverse to the foundations upon which our nation was built. While Congress could easily ban cigarettes to all members of society, such a blanket ruling would spark massive outrage, event o non-smokers. The specifics of the law are immaterial in this case; the idea of blocking personal rights is the fundamental issue.</p>
<p>What remains, then, of substances that are regulated, solely for the well being of society? Minors, for instance, are forbidden to alcohol, until they legally become adults. This, however, seems to fit inside the American paragon of democracyminors have not yet accepted the responsibilities of adults, and thus they are not given the privileges that come with such obligations.</p>
<p>What of drugs? Many drugs, such as cocaine and heroine, were blanket banned due to their pervasive reach across society. On the few occasions when drugs are legally permitted, such as in medicinal marijuana, they are tightly regulated. This is solely for the well being of our nation, despite the infringement of our personal liberties. Is it ethically defendable?</p>
<p>Regulation of drugs and alcohol have both been well-meant, but have spawned black markets across America. When something is unattainable, its value increases tenfold. The lengths to which people will reach for potentially harmful substances, therefore, heavily obfuscate the solution.</p>
<p>In spite of this, the solution boils down to the hard trutha government must act in its citizens best interests. People may riot and denounce this idea, but authority that does not have its subjects best interests at heart will descend into tyranny. Health may seem an individual choice, but a government has the moral obligation to help citizens make that choice. The social contract, as Locke said, is a two sided bargainpeople agree to be governed and authority govern in the peoples best interests. In the case of drugs, due to the ubiquity of black market sales, strict regulation is necessary. Fast food, being less harmful, has less authoritative solutions. Dubai, for instance, rewards citizens monetarily for every kilo of weight shed. Society may covet every right and liberty is perceives as fundamental, however, people must realize that not all rights are in their best interests. Democracy is all and well, but in the end, the well-being of citizens is the governments responsibility.</p>