Evaluating Alcohol Control Policies in London and Istanbul

Urban Intoxication: Evaluating Alcohol Control Policies in London and Istanbul Benjamin Hamm Conard 4/25/15

Created for Global Urban Lab Rice University: School of Social Sciences

Executive Summary Recent years have seen significant changes in the alcohol control policies of both the United Kingdom and Turkey. This paper explores the different effects of these policies, specifically those implemented by the Licensing Act 2003 in the United Kingdom and the laws passed by the Justice and Development Party in Turkey. As microcosms of their respective countries, London and Istanbul will be examined as spaces in which policy that regulates alcohol is controversial and, at times, volatile. Due to their dense populations, the prevalence of bars and other alcohol-serving venues, and the atmosphere of “work hard, play hard� found in both, these cities prove to be excellent studies for the regulation of alcohol. The paper will find that culture and history play important roles in determining intent, implementation and the subsequent consequences of alcohol control policies. The paper will seek to explore the relationship between the increase in alcohol control policies in both countries and alcohol consumption, as it is manifested in Istanbul and London. Finally, it will find that the manifestation of alcohol control policies in both cities is highly affected by the desire of the countries to curb the negative health and safety effects of alcohol consumption.

1|Page

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... 2 Report ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 Issue Statement ...................................................................................................................... 4 Research .................................................................................................................................. 4 Findings ................................................................................................................................... 5 Past and Present: Alcohol in London and the United Kingdom ........................................... 5 Alcohol Consumption Levels, Problem-drinking, and Other Statistics ................................. 6 United Kingdom Alcohol Control Policies: The Licensing Act 2003 ...................................... 6 Past and Present: Alcohol in Istanbul and Turkey ................................................................ 7 Alcohol Abstinence, Abuse, and Other Statistics ................................................................. 8 Turkish Alcohol Control Policies: Recent Developments and Youth Focus ........................... 8 Evaluation................................................................................................................................ 9 Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 12 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ 14

2|Page

Report Introduction: Alcohol is one of the few drugs largely accepted in society. While it has been celebrated for its social benefits and has played a significant role in the development of civilization, it also has considerable health risks, and is associated with a variety of anti-social behaviors (West et al, 2006). Governmental regulation of alcohol has been instrumental in limiting the negative impacts that alcohol can have on an individual and a societal level.

Cities have played a significant role in this regulation, as they function as densely populated spaces wherein nightlife is one of the key attractions. The high concentration of people and quarters in urban centers as well as the prevalence of bars, pubs, and other establishments focused on serving alcohol means that alcohol consumption affects a wide variety of people, not just those who drink. As a result, alcohol control policies must take into account both the public and private consumption of alcohol, and the effects that these policies might have on both drinkers and non-drinkers.

London and Istanbul, two cities of immense international stature, stand in stark contrast to one another both in their historical and cultural relationships with alcohol, and their alcohol policies. In London, drinking has long been a socially accepted and often encouraged activity; this is evidenced by the fact that there are over 7,000 pubs in London alone, and the United Kingdom is widely perceived as a “drinking nation” (Ricciardi). This has led to a comprehensive set of alcohol control policies, as the regulation of alcohol has been a key part of the United Kingdom’s Department of Health and Safety for well over a century. This is not to say, however, that policy has been made without controversy, as alcohol is an inherently controversial topic.

Conversely, alcohol was banned in Istanbul until the advent of the modern Republic in the last century. As a predominantly Muslim nation, alcohol was forbidden under the Ottoman Empire, and is still forbidden in the Islamic faith. To say that this has played a significant role in the construction and implementation of alcohol policy in both the city and the nation as a whole would be a drastic understatement (Göymen). Istanbul proves to be an interesting subject in this regard due to its geographic and social position as a crossroads between Eastern and Western culture. With recent changes in governance, Turkey is currently facing an identity crisis of sorts. Controversy in Istanbul has centered on the conservative government, headed by the Justice and Development Party, which came to power in 2002. Secular groups have protested that the new alcohol control policies are a step back to the prohibition endured by the country under the Ottomans. Istanbul, a major hub of nightlife and alcohol consumption in Turkey, has played a significant role in these contestations.

In examining the alcohol control policies implemented by the governments of both Turkey and the United Kingdom, this paper aims to shed light on the key differences found therein. As two cities that have almost opposite cultures when it comes to the acceptance, prevalence and impact of alcohol consumption, London and Istanbul will serve as the basis for these comparisons.

3|Page

Issue Statement: Alcohol consumption has always been a contentious part of urban policy decisionmaking and through the examples of Istanbul and London this paper will explore how these policy decisions have played out. Both through statistical and ethnographic research, the two cities will be contrasted with each other with the express intent to determine the differences and similarities of their respective alcohol control policies. It is not the intent of this paper to provide policy recommendations. Rather, this paper aims to evaluate the intent, execution, and the subsequent consequences of alcohol control policies in both London and Istanbul.

Research: For both London and Istanbul this paper will draw on a combination of ethnographic research, conducted by the author, and a variety of news sources and statistical databases referring to consumption levels and changes in alcohol policy in both countries. Statistics will primarily draw from the World Health Organization’s data on worldwide consumption.

Additional data will be taken from a variety of sources, including a study on alcohol control policies, as well as reports issued by the governments of both Turkey and the United Kingdom.

In some cases, these data will refer to the broader populations of the United Kingdom and Turkey, as information for specific cities is not always available. In these cases, the data will be analyzed through the lens of both the conducted ethnographic research and through broader statistics relating the cities to their respective countries.

Ethnographic research was conducted in both cities. The author lived in London between January 19th and April 25th, and while residing in the city conducted formal and informal interviews with experts in the general field of alcohol as well as members of the public. Subjects of interviews included Gianmaria Ricciardi, the head brewer at the Howling Hops Brewery, bartenders at the Riding House Café, conversations with local councilors, accessed through the author’s internship with the Local Government Association in London, and students encountered at the Imperial College Student Union. Additional supporting evidence will be given in the form of personal experience, although this evidence will be purely supplementary to the statistical data.

Gianmaria Ricciardi emphasized the familial nature of the pub. He is an Italian immigrant in his early 30s who moved to London to pursue a career in brewing beer. His insight on the difference between beer in London and beer in the rest of Europe was helpful in understanding the nature of London’s alcohol culture. It was made clear through our discussion that beer is an item that unites people in London, and is a substance that invites conversation. While other nations in Europe are known for their wine or spirits, in many ways Gianmaria believes that the United Kingdom, and London specifically as its capital, centers its drinking culture on beer. This

4|Page

helps to explain the social aspect of pub life and the importance of the pub in the UK as an establishment that welcomes large groups and predominantly serves beer.

From March 2nd through March 8th, the author traveled to Istanbul to conduct in person interviews with experts in Istanbul, as well as ground the data collected in experiential learning. Formal interviews were conducted with policy expert Korel Göymen at the Istanbul Policy Centre and with Huseyin Öztürk, the head brewer of the Bosphorous Brewing Company.

An additional interview with an American living in Istanbul for 15 years will be omitted due to the subject’s request for anonymity. These interviews will be supported by informal interviews conducted with locals during time spent at bars in Istanbul, as well as by the ethnographic research obtained from experiences in Istanbul during the week of travel.

Korel Göymen, a policy expert and an Istanbul resident was able to provide information on how the government and the residents of the city treat alcohol. He spoke to the history of Turkey as a smoking culture, further shown through the multitude of hookah bars. He emphasized that this was due in large part to the fact that drinking is forbidden in Islam, whereas smoking is not.

Huseyin Öztürk, the head brewer at the Bosphorus Brewing Company, spoke to the difficulties faced by establishments serving alcohol as well as to the hardships faced by local brewers. Chief amongst these troubles is the tax on alcohol and alcohol-related imports in Turkey. Many of the beers brewed at the Bosphorus Brewing Company require ingredients not found in Turkey (hop varieties are specific to the location they are grown in, such as Germany or the Cascade Mountains in the U.S.). The tax imposed by the government on these ingredients makes it difficult for brewpubs wishing to brew their own beers, and near impossible for home brewers hoping to brew beer as a hobby.

Finally, newspaper articles as well as journalistic resources exploring the history of alcohol consumption and the related policies will be used. In some instances, these articles will take contrarian positions against the government, and, where appropriate, these biases will either be stated or removed.

Findings: Past and Present: Alcohol in London and the United Kingdom In 1751, the English artist William Hogarth issued two prints—of the fictitious London streets ‘Beer Street’ and ‘Gin Lane’—intended to portray the benefits of drinking beer and the detriments of drinking gin. The prints were made in support of the Gin Act, a statute imposed by the government to combat the so-called ‘Gin Craze’ of the early 1700s (Gately, 171). This was a time during which the prevalence and cheapness of gin caused Londoners to consume alcohol at an incredible rate and drunkenness among the working class was a common state of being. In fact, the source of the Gin Craze was legislation passed by the government 5|Page

encouraging the practice of grain distilling, which was intended to prop up the faltering agricultural economy (Dillon, 15). London has long had a cultural acceptance of alcohol, which is evident today in the prevalence of pubs that occupy street corners like Starbucks coffee shops in New York City. Only by spending time in England can one truly experience the deep-seated cultural significance of the British pub. The pub is a place to meet friends, bring family, socialize with colleagues after work, and enjoy the company of others. Pubs typically have outdoor standing areas, and it is common to see rows of people packed tightly together in front of the windows, sipping beer and sometimes obstructing the pedestrians walking by. As a social construct, the pub plays an important role in understanding British alcohol policy. In an alcohol strategy report issued by the U.K. government, Prime Minister David Cameron made clear that new regulations “will not hurt pubs.” The report additionally commented that, “in moderation, alcohol consumption can have a positive impact on adults’ wellbeing, especially where this encourages sociability” (the Government’s Alcohol Strategy, 3). In the U.K., alcohol is treated as something different than just a harmful substance to be regulated: it is an important part of English culture.

Alcohol Consumption Levels, Problem-drinking, and Other Statistics Statistically, the U.K. records higher yearly alcohol consumption levels than the European average, at 11.6 liters of pure alcohol per capita (averaged over the years from 20082010), compared to the European average of 10.9. Overall, however, alcohol consumption in the U.K. is down since the 2003-2005 average of 13.2 liters of pure alcohol per capita (World Health Organization). When compared to other regions in the U.K., alcohol consumption levels per capita in London are significantly lower, especially when measured against higher drinking areas such as the North East. Rates of dangerous drinking are also lower in London. “The average units consumed on the heaviest drinking day exceeded twice the recommended limits for drinkers in the North East (9.3 for men and 6.5 for women), while the average number of units was lowest in London (6.4 for men, 4.2 for women)” (Eastwood, 20). Similarly, school pupils in London were found much less likely to have ever drunk alcohol than pupils in other regions, and London had the lowest amount of prescriptions for alcohol dependency per capita in England (Eastwood, 20). In London, bingeing is less common, students are less likely to drink, and alcohol dependency is lower than the rest of England. While the U.K. drinks more than the European average, the effects are not as apparent in London as they are in the rest of the country.

United Kingdom Alcohol Control Policies: The Licensing Act 2003 In the United Kingdom, the most significant law in recent history to be passed was the Licensing Act 2003. The act, which was implemented in 2005 updated laws that had not been altered since 1964 (O’Brien). These laws largely concerned the distribution and sale of alcohol by licensed premises, and allowed licensed premises to apply for extended hours. Responsibility for issuing liquor licenses, thereby allowing establishments to serve alcohol, was given to local 6|Page

councils. Reaction to the law at the time can be divided into two opposing categories. The first position was that with extended hours and more businesses able to sell alcohol, consumption would increase, and with it drinking-related incidents such as public intoxication and health complications as a result of ‘binge drinking’. The second opined that with extended hours patrons would no longer feel the need to consume as much as possible before the early closing time, and therefore consumption and its negative effects would decrease (Roberts et al, 6). The more general purpose of the law, however, was to streamline the bureaucratic licensing process and devolve power to local councils who would be better able to regulate the sale of alcohol. Additionally, the act stipulated that local residents would be able to determine the opening hours of their local bars and pubs by collective agreement. If patrons of a pub or bar were perceived to be disturbing the peace, local residents could petition for a restriction on the operating hours of the establishment (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 33).

London has fairly permissive laws when it comes to public consumption. Drinking in public is legal in England, with very little restrictions in place. There are certain areas that local councils may have declared “Controlled Drinking Zones” in which police officers may ask people to cease drinking and can confiscate open or closed containers of alcohol (Morris). The current Mayor of London, Boris Johnson banned drinking on public transport, which until 2008 had been legal (BBC England). Drinking on non-public transportation, such as the National Rail, is still legal. Alcohol advertising has been strictly regulated in the United Kingdom. It is illegal for alcohol advertisements to target those under the age of 18, and ads are restricted from appealing in any way to youth demographics, “by linking alcohol with irresponsible behavior, social success or sexual attractiveness” (Advertising Standards Authority). Ads for alcohol are also restricted from being played during or near programming that targets people under the age of 18 or that may appeal to a youth demographic (Advertising Standards Authority).

Past and Present: Alcohol in Istanbul and Turkey Turkey is a historically Islamic nation. In the practice of Islam, alcohol is forbidden, and during the reign of the Ottoman Empire, consumption of alcohol was banned. Following the advent of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, a new, secular ideology that ran counter to that of the Sultanates that had ruled for over 600 years found its place in Turkish politics. Led by Mustafa Attatürk, the new government did away with many of the laws that had been established under the old Islamic government. This included the ban on alcohol. Today, the culture of alcohol use in Istanbul is tenuous. The majority of the population identifies with the Islamic faith, and as such does not drink. More common is the use of pipe tobacco and shisha, which is widely accepted and practiced both in the home and at the many shisha bars in Istanbul (Göymen).

Since alcohol is not a fully integrated part of the Turkish culture, casual drinking is not as widespread as in other European cities. This does mean that there is no alcohol culture to speak of. Bars in Istanbul are open until the early hours of the morning and serve a combination of beer, wine, and spirits. Istiklal Avenue, which leads from the Galata Tower to Taksim Square, is full of side alleys with an array of bars offering plenty of nightlife. There is also a prevalence of ‘shot bars’—bars that specialize in serving shots (typical measurement for spirits, constitutes 1 7|Page

unit of alcohol) of hard alcohol in large quantities at cheap prices. Predominantly it is younger generations going to these bars and dominating Istanbul’s nightlife.

Alcohol Abstinence, Abuse, and Other Statistics The high rates of abstention in Turkey prove that the large majority of the population does not consume alcohol in any context—neither casual consumption nor bingeing. In 2010, 79.6% of Turkey’s population abstained from drinking. These statistics were higher amongst women, with 92.4% of females abstaining and 65.9% of males abstaining (World Health Organization). Rates of alcohol abuse and other negative consequences associated with alcohol use are, as a result, relatively low in Turkey. The World Health Organization survey measured an incredibly low rate of heavy episodic drinking (measured as having “consumed at least 60 grams of pure alcohol on at least one occasion in the past 30 days”) at 1.6% of the drinking population and just 0.3% of the overall population (World Health Organization). Additionally, consumption from 2008 to 2010 was recorded at 1.4 liters of pure alcohol per capita. This has not changed from the 2003-2005 average (World Health Organization). In Istanbul, a study conducted in 2003 indicated that 25.6% of residents used alcohol, again with fewer women using than men (15.9% and 34.5% respectively) (Akvardar et al, 1081). Rates of use in the 2014 World Health Organization study show similar data for the population of Turkey as a whole, at 20.4% of the population using alcohol. It is difficult to extrapolate on this comparison, however, as urban versus rural differences as well as time could explain the difference. The 2003 study reported that the rate of alcohol use was highest in among those aged 40-49 years old, while the onset of alcohol consumption was most common for 16-19 year olds (Akvardar et al, 1081). Evidence of “risky drinking” was found in 6.8% of those surveyed (Akvardar et al, 1081). Statistics are admittedly hard to come by for Istanbul and the associated rates of alcohol consumption. This can be attributed to the language difference, amongst other factors, given that scholarly articles examining alcohol use in Turkey will likely be published in Turkish.

Turkish Alcohol Control Policies: Recent Developments and Youth Focus Much of the discussion surrounding alcohol use in Turkey has centered on the younger generations, as they are perceived as being more likely to be drinking and drinking in larger quantities. Additionally, it has been well established that there is a known link between alcohol advertisements and the increased consumption of alcohol, particularly for those under the age of 18 (Booth et al, 142). The Turkish government has made it clear that their policies are targeted towards youths. The government has drawn heavily on Article 58 in the Turkish Constitution mandating that the state should “protect the youth from addiction to alcohol” amongst other substances (Turkey Constitution, Art. 58). Additionally, public drunkenness is illegal and is penalized by a fine and a minimum 15-day jail sentence for “disturbing others and violating public order” (Buker, 4). Given the stated motive of the government that these regulations were engineered with Article 58 in mind, this explains the ban on advertising and public intoxication. From a night out in Istanbul, it is clear that just as with most hubs of 8|Page

nightlife, bars cater to a younger crowd. As referenced in a report by the USDA on exports to Turkey, “the relatively young average age in Turkey is expected to support continued growth in [the alcoholic beverage] sector as the younger Turks account for the major part of alcohol consumption. This growth is despite increased prices as a result of frequent increases in Turkey’s Special Consumption Tax” (USDA, 2). The Special Consumption Tax refers to the tax placed by the Turkish government on, amongst other things, alcohol. Despite the government’s intention to curtail alcohol use by younger generations, it seems inevitable that younger generations will be those drinking the most. In this way, the intention and measured results of Turkish alcohol policy do not align. While statistics are not readily available regarding rates of alcohol addiction in Turkey, alcohol consumption continues to rise, especially amongst younger generations of Turks (World Health Organization).

In Turkey, recent years have brought about significant changes in national laws that regulate alcohol and alcohol consumption. These changes were the focus of many news articles at the time of their implementation and are still the topic of contention to this day. Laws included an increase in sales tax on alcoholic beverages, a ban on advertisements for alcohol, and a restriction on the hours during which alcohol sales are permitted. In response to criticism by secular groups in Turkey, the government cited the need to bring Turkey’s alcohol policy up to par with existing policies in European nations (Asalioğlu).

Indeed, most of these laws, passed by the Justice and Development Party (JDP), were equivalent to laws that had been in place in the European Union (EU) for decades. In the comparative analysis of alcohol control policies on the 30 countries comprising the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Turkey was ranked in the middle for its policy strength (12 out of 30) (Brand et al). The study measured alcohol control policies based on the strength of policies relating to the physical availability of alcohol, community programs designed to prevent alcohol problems, alcohol prices, alcohol advertising, and motor vehicle use under the influence. Undoubtedly with new regulations on sales times and an increase tax on alcoholic beverages, Turkey’s rating for alcohol control policies would be even higher today.

Evaluation: One of the key differences explored above between the alcohol policies of Istanbul and London is the level on which these policy decisions are being made. In Turkey, policy is constructed at the national level to regulate alcohol use and curb public disorder and other such anti-social behavior that can result. It is difficult to study alcohol policy in Istanbul specifically because policy is the same across the country. While broad policy, such as that that affects advertising and mandates the drinking age is universal in both countries, the United Kingdom differs in its devolution of alcohol control policy to local groups and councils. This means that London, and the individual districts therein have significant control over alcohol regulation. Locals are capable of controlling the hours during which bars are open as well as areas where public consumption is not permitted. In Istanbul, these decisions are controlled by 9|Page

the national government. Factors that affect these different styles of policy-making certainly include the lack of a ‘pub culture’ in Istanbul, due in large part to the historical shunning of alcoholic beverages. With the extent that alcohol has pervaded British culture, and the established consideration of the social benefits provided by pubs, the government can afford to let locals control their respective environments. On the contrary, as alcohol has never been a pervasive part of Turkish culture, the social aspect of drinking has not been ingrained and there are no pub equivalents to be regulated locally.

In this regard, U.K. alcohol policy has been well established since the 1700s meaning that policy changes today are predominantly concerned with amending laws that are already on the books. As the nature of alcohol consumption evolves and as new data emerge regarding the health risks and social benefits, U.K. law has evolved more or less in pace (the Licensing Act 2003 being the most recent example of this evolution). Istanbul and Turkey, however, have been thrust into a position of creating and editing alcohol policy in a relatively short period of time. Given the ban on alcohol consumption under the Ottoman government and the rapid reversal of prohibition following the emergence of the Turkish Republic in 1923, alcohol policy has been a volatile part of Turkish law. This trend has continued in the 21st century. The amendments made to Turkish alcohol policy by the conservative JDP Party have proven much less permissive than the laws they are amending, though just two decades ago Turkish alcohol policy was considered more liberal than many countries in the European Union. This volatility is the result of the short period of time that the Turkish government has been regulating alcohol and possibly merely a symptom of the relative youth of the Republic of Turkey. While the U.K. has developed its alcohol policy over the course of hundreds of years, the government of Turkey has only had to regulate alcohol on a more granular level since 1923.

Not surprising is the emphasis that both governments place on health and safety, and specifically the health and safety of the younger generations. The express intent of laws affecting the consumption, provision, or distribution of alcohol is to provide safety for alcohol users and to limit the potential negative effects associated with drinking alcohol (including binge drinking, alcohol related injuries, crime related to alcohol, and others, generally categorized as anti-social effects). With the drinking age set at 18 years old, the governments of both countries have made it clear that their focus is to curtail the negative effects of drinking amongst the youth. In London, advertisers are not allowed to target youth with advertisements promoting alcohol consumption, and in Istanbul advertisements are banned altogether.

Additionally, recent laws in Turkey have mandated that alcohol consumption as well as smoking be censored from television. Both countries also place an emphasis on reducing problematic episodic drinking, and focus on lowering the rates of alcohol dependency and alcohol related health issues. London has seen success in this endeavor, especially when compared to the rest of the United Kingdom. The statistics are less clear for Istanbul specifically, however alcohol dependence in Turkey dropped from 1.3% of the population in 2000 to 0.8% of the population in 2010 (World Health Organization).

Controversy has affected both cities, though perhaps Istanbul on a grander scale. The regulation of alcohol, as a drug with significant health and safety risks such as overconsumption and addiction is naturally a controversial topic. The controversy in Istanbul is due to the fact 10 | P a g e

that many in the Western world—and indeed many secular Turkish groups—view the recent increase of alcohol control policies as religiously based. The reality of the matter, however, is that many countries have similarly strict controls of alcohol consumption, licensing and sale, and that from the policies alone, there is no indication that religion was involved directly in the policy-making. That being said, it is impossible to ignore the country’s history as a Muslim nation and the fact that the majority of the population abstains from alcohol use entirely.

Controversy in London is largely broken into two groups, those that believe policies are too permissive and those who believe they are too restrictive. Following the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 (though the U.K. was still ranked on the lower end of the alcohol control policy survey conducted on OECD nations) critics decried the later hours of operation for pubs stating that it gave more time for drinkers to consume more alcohol. In fact, it prevented the prevalence of ‘binge drinking’ associated with early closing hours forcing patrons to drink as much as possible before being sent home. Compared to the Turkish controversy, this is relatively minimal, however it is important to note that with the regulation of a substance such as alcohol, there will always be controversy to some degree.

The goal of this paper is not to serve as a policy recommendation for either city—there are simply too many contrasting factors to control for to issue a recommendation based on the policies of one or the other. Likewise, as alcohol policy is largely a function of the people it is made for, policies that fit in Istanbul would not fit in London, and vice versa. It is not the purpose of this paper to criticize or recommend, rather to compare and shed light on differing alcohol policies and their intended and realized effects.

11 | P a g e

Works Cited West, Robert, Colin Drummond, and Kate Eames. "Alcohol Consumption, Problem Drinking and Antisocial Behaviour in a Sample of College Students." British Journal of Addiction 85.4 (2006): 479-86. Web. 24 Apr. 2015.

Gately, Iain. Drink: A Cultural History of Alcohol. New York: Gotham, 2008. 171. Print.

Dillon, Patrick. Gin: The Much Lamented Death of Madam Geneva the Eighteenth Century Gin Craze. London: Thistle, 2013. 15. Print.

Turkey Constitution. Article 58.

The Government's Alcohol Strategy. London, 2012. 3. Print.

"Country Profiles." World Health Organization Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health 2014 (2014): 243, 246. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/msb_gsr_2014_2.p df?ua=1>.

Eastwood, Paul. "Statistics on Alcohol: England, 2013." Health and Social Care Information Centre (2013): 20. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB10932/alc-eng2013-rep.pdf>.

O'Brien, Mike. "The Idiot's Guide to Licensing Laws." BBC 31 Jan. 2006. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/content/articles/2005/11/21/drinking_laws_intro_feat ure.shtml>.

Roberts, Marion, and Adam Eldridge. "Expecting â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Great Thingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;? The Impact of TheLicensing Act 2003 on Democratic Involvement, Dispersal and Drinking Cultures." (2007): 6. University of Westminster. Web. 24 Apr. 2015.

"Evaluation of the Impact of the Licensing Act 2003." BBC Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2008): 33. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/04_03_08_Licensingevaluation.pdf>.

Morris, James. "Councils May Use Bye-laws for 'no Alcohol Zones'" Alcohol Policy UK 4 Oct. 2009. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://www.alcoholpolicy.net/2009/10/councils-may-use-bylawsfor-no-alcohol-zones.html>.

"Johnson Bans Drink on Transport." BBC England 7 May 2008. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7387113.stm>.

"Alcohol Advertising." Advertising Standards Authority. 2015. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <http://asa.org.uk/News-resources/Hot-Topics/Alcohol.aspx#.VTaKpq3BzGc>.

12 | P a g e

Akvardar, Yildiz, Ahmet Turkcan, Umit Yazman, Sema Aytaclar, Gul Ergor, and Duran Cakmak.

"Prevalence of Alcohol Use in Istanbul." Psychological Reports 92.3c (2003): 1081-088. Web. 24 Apr. 2015.

Booth, Andrew, Petra Meier, Tim Stockwell, Anthea Sutton, Anna Wilkinson, and Ruth Wong.

"Independent Review of the Effects of Alcohol Pricing and Promotion." Project Report for the Department of Health (2008): 142. University of Sheffield. Web. 24 Apr. 2015. <https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.95617!/file/PartA.pdf>.

Buker, Hasan. "Substance Abuse in Turkey: A Critical Review." Crime & Justice International 22.91 (2006): 4-13. Web. 24 Apr. 2015.

United States of America. USDA. Foreign Agricultural Service. “Alcoholic Beverages Sector Report: Turkey.” By Meliha Atalaysun. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2015.

Asalioğlu, Ibrahim. "Parliament Passes Bill Limiting Sale of Alcohol, Banning Ads." Today's Zaman 24 May 2013. Print.

Brand, Donald A, Michaela Saisana, Lisa A Rynn, Fulvia Pennoni, and Albert B Lowenfels.

"Comparative Analysis of Alcohol Control Policies in 30 Countries." PLOS Medicine (2007). Web. 25 Apr. 2015. <http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040151>.

Ricciardi, Gianmaria. "Brewing and Pubs in London." Personal interview. 20 Feb. 2015.

Göymen, Korel. "Alcohol Policy in Istanbul." Personal interview. 3 Mar. 2015. Öztürk, Huseyin. “The Bosphorus Brewing Company.” Personal interview. 6 Mar. 2015

13 | P a g e

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Jeff Fleisher, who spearheaded the Global Urban Lab in London and provided counsel, advice, and support during the process as well as timely relief and a few dinners to boot. Thanks to Ipek Martinez, Abbey Godley, Nia Georges, and Giray Ă&#x2013;zĹ&#x;eker for the work they put in to facilitate the trip to Istanbul, and to our driver in Istanbul who tirelessly escorted us through the city with a smile on his face. Without those interviewed, this paper would not have been complete, and Huseyin at the Bosphorus Brewing Co. deserves special thanks for handling my endless questions and allowing me to explore the brewpub with reckless abandon. Thanks as well to the rest of the Global Urban Lab group in London with whom I shared this unique experience: Cydney Smith, who helped to edit this paper, as well as Enrique, Omar, Ryan, Ryan, Sean, and Tanvi.

14 | P a g e