It is irrefutable that health has become a critical concern for local authorities. As per the views of some people, government should introduce new sports provisions and facilities for people yo ameliorate their well-being, while others assert that such a practise has negligible impact and other ways are required to make people healthy. In mu opinion, both arguments have their own set of merits, the relevant arguments in favour of which have been elucidated in succeeding body paragraphs.
Those who support the former argument, contend that staying physically active mitigates the risk of diseases and health concerns. If wider range of fitness amenities are provided such as swimming pools, gymnasiums and basketball courts etc., people would be more willing to quit inactive lifestyle and develop physical fitness. Moreover, citizens of a country are its biggest asset. Without them, there would be no economic growth. If their health is compromised, entire nation will regress. Therefore, authorities should set up new provisions for public heath to sustain national well-being.
Turning to the supporters of second side, they think that spending on sports activities has no profound impact on people’s health and there are other more effective alternatives. Firstly, there are many socio-economic factors that influence public health such as water and sanitation, pollution and lack of garbage management. Thus, state should work on improving these basic necessities to ensure overall well-being. In addition, by levying huge taxes on processed food and subsidising healthy goods, public would be less likely to buy fast food and tend to make better nutritional choices.
In conclusion, it is apparent from the above discussion that both approaches hold ground in their own way. Initiating facilities for gyms and sports would greatly encourage citizens to quit sedentary lifestyle. Along with that, government should integrate other measures such as building infrastructure for sanitation and clean drinking water.