Reevaluating America's Minimum Drinking Age Legislation

Alcohol consumption has been a salient, controversial issue in America, since colonization. In the 1800s and early 1900s, the issue of morality drove opponents of alcohol consumption, leading to Prohibition. Today, however, debate centers on the misuse of alcohol and automobile accidents. In 1984, The National Minimum Drinking Age Act was adopted. Although enacted with worthy intention, increasing the legal drinking age to twenty one has, subsequently, led to many negative issues in society.

The first legislation concerning the minimum legal drinking age was seen during the prohibition era. More recently, the drinking age came under scrutiny in the 1960s, as the Vietnam War reintroduced the draft into American society. Due to the passage of the twenty-sixth amendment, which lowered the minimum voting age from twenty-one to eighteen, many states, in turn, lowered their minimum legal drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen. Under the influence of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, (MADD) Senator Frank Lautenberg composed national legislation to raise the minimum drinking age. The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 obliges that states must

prohibit a person under the age of twenty-one from purchasing or possessing alcoholic beverages, as a condition of collecting federal highway funds.
While this act was enacted to combat increased motor vehicle fatalities, it has compromised the safety of college campuses. Prohibiting young adults from drinking in bars, restaurants, and other licensed facilities, caused eighteen to twenty year olds to drink in unsupervised locations. This age group is more prone to binge drinking at fraternity houses and house parties. The Amethyst Initiative, an organization of college presidents in the United States, was established to rally support for altering the minimum drinking age. This initiative, which has stated, “Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students,” () is now supported by over 130 college presidents. Further, many argue that lowering the minimum age to 18 will normalize the activity of alcohol consumption in society. Thus, it will curb the thrill of drinking merely to break the law. Finally, others add practical reasons, such as greater amounts of tax revenue and that all adults should have the right to make their own decisions about alcohol consumption. Opposition to the new minimum legal drinking age has been present and increasing. And, Bills have been proposed in many state legislatures, including Minnesota, to change the legal minimum drinking age.
Oedipus, the tragic hero of Sophocles’ Oedipus the King, was marked with a horrific fate. He was destined to kill his father, and later marry his mother. Upon hearing his fate, he departs Corinth, having been sent there as a baby. Even though Oedipus has been given dubious hints that his father is not truly the King of Corinth, he murders an old traveler, and marries Jocasta as he takes over as King of Thebes. Even when Jocasta denies the fate of her son, she cites a fulfilled prophecy, “An oracle Once came to Laius one fine day...it declared that doom would strike him down at the hands of a son, our son...But Laius, so the report goes at least, was killed by strangers, thieves...There, you see...My baby no more murdered his father than Laius suffered” (Sophocles, 784-795). Prophecy foretold that the son of Laius would fulfill the legacy, in which thousands of years later, Sigmund Freud would coin a disputed psychological study after him. However, as Oedipus is a tragic hero, his character and actions contribute to his overall situation. Fate and free will together decide the downfall of Oedipus. Oedipus’ character and behavior contributed to his ultimate punishment.
Although Oedipus was predestined to act in such a way, he took advantage of his little freedom and free will. He was free to search for the truth, about himself, the gods, prophecies, etc. Once it becomes clear the true story of Oedipus’ birth, the young man presses on. In his introduction, Bernard Knox writes, “... of this freedom he makes full use. Against the advice and appeals of others, he pushes on, searching for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” (Knox, 153). Also, he acted freely in his decision to blind himself, instead of committing suicide. As Oedipus maintained the power to search for knowledge, we have the power to seek knowledge and, thus, a solution to this issue. The decision to change the drinking age was made purposely by our government. Despite our higher drinking age, The United States boasts one of the highest levels of automobile accidents and fatalities as a result of drinking, in the world. Studies in the United States substantiated that an increase in motor vehicle fatalities was a result of a minimum legal drinking of eighteen. In fact, many countries with a MLDA of eighteen boast fewer drunk driving traffic accidents.
We do not act in the spirit of Oedipus, as we falter in our search for knowledge, but we have acted impulsively. In Thebes, He rules with purpose, but also impulsion. The beginning of Oedipus the King, Oedipus exerts his position regarding the unknown murderer of the previous king. He seeks to condemn the man, as the state of Thebes cannot improve without avenging the murder of Laius. He advises his citizens to denounce the murderer, “never make him partner to your prayers, you victims burned to the gods. Never let the holy water touch his hands. Drive him out, each of you, from every home. He is the plague, the heart of our corruption…” (Sophocles, 172). Oedipus was indeed the assassin he sought. He is urged by several, including the prophets, to not announce his convictions to the people of Thebes, Thus, he shows us that rash actions, that seem to be appropriate, can ultimately lead to consequences.
We decided to adopt a law in which seemed to be a safe alternative, but we failed to recognize the fundamental problems with alcohol in our society.
Run Lola Run, a German thriller, follows a woman and her attempt to collect 100,000 marks for her boyfriend.

Written and directed by Tom Tykwer, the story follows Lola, as she makes three different, twenty-minute, “runs” in an attempt to save Manni’s life. First, Lola tries to borrow the money from her father’s bank. This run ends, but the film reverts back to the opening scene as Lola refuses to die. In the second run, she robs a bank to retrieve the marks. But, Manni is in a fatal ambulance accident, and so the film returns to the start again. Finally, Lola obtains the money at a roulette table. Similarly to Oedipus, Run Lola Run, in its exploration of free will vs. determinism, supports the compatibilist view. This philosophy holds that free will can coexist with determinism, without being inconsistent or

illogical.
Without purpose, Lola alters the direction of citizens’ lives, those in which she encounters. Lola’s fleeting interactions with others illustrates the butterfly effect, in which small, insignificant change at one point in time can have a large effect later. Just as Lola’s brief encounters with others greatly affect these various characters lives, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act has led to many unforeseen consequences. American news is full of reports and stories of the growing uneasiness of life on college campuses. Lowering the drinking age would be a solution to this problem. Parties would be much safer, as they could be regulated and registered. Decisions, thus, can affect fate and subsequent actions. Government policies may seem insignificant and beneficial, but cause negative effects in the long run and great alterations in the future.
Governmental policies, which greatly affect citizen’s daily life, are governed mostly by free will and random chance. However, as it holds in the works of Oedipus and Run Lola Run, fate may play a role in our existence. Complete determinism, is not valid or legitimate.