Contested Terrains? The Politics of Alcohol Bans, Drinking Contexts, and COVID-19 in Botswana

The onset of COVID-19 resulted in the adoption of various measures such as lockdowns and alcohol bans. These interventions were new and unprecedented in the way they impacted drinking experiences across various contexts. The impact of COVID-19 lockdowns and other alcohol restrictions in non-Western contexts remains unknown. Little is known about how the strict prohibition of COVID-19 lockdowns impacted drinkers. Using grounded theory methods from an alcohol study based in Botswana with drinkers (n = 20), this paper investigated the impact of lockdowns and alcohol bans in Botswana. Key themes from the data relate to support for alcohol bans, opposition to bans, and adjusting drinking practices. Drinking at home due to COVID-19 lockdowns led to shifts in drinking practices. The paper draws attention toward the need to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic might impact drinking experiences in developing countries. Study findings point toward the complex ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic and its alcohol restrictions may shape drinking experiences in home contexts. More importantly, the paper highlights the importance of home-drinking as a focal area for research in non-Western contexts.


Introduction
The onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impacted the world in fundamental ways.Many countries adopted several measures to contain the rapid spread of the disease and its effect on populations.Upon the declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended some safety protocols such as social distancing, wearing face masks, lockdowns and other measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19.To deal with the threat of COVID-19, one of the issues that was prioritized by governments was the distribution, sale and consumption of alcohol.Many governments focused attention on alcohol use as high-risk activity and placed some restrictions on alcohol sales (Rehm et al., 2020).Lockdowns and alcohol bans were implemented to deal with the viral transmission risks associated with drinking.These measures were inspired by the WHO and shared by governments, policy makers, alcohol researchers and public health practitioners alike.Some studies have linked alcohol use and the risk of COVID-19 infection (Colbert et al., 2020;Finlay & Gilmore, 2020;Garcia & Sanchez, 2020).Stockwell et al. (2021), for example, stated that "the COVID-19 crisis provides the perfect time to confront dysfunctional societal relationships with alcohol" (p. 6).The rationale behind restricting access to alcohol and banning on-site consumption was that drunk people were assumed to be incapable of observing COVID-related protocols.Although alcohol restrictions were popular, they were implemented to varying levels by different countries.Some countries totally banned alcohol consumption and strictly enforced its distribution and sale during COVID-19 lockdowns.On the other hand, some countries allowed onsite consumption with a restricted number of people, while some allowed drinkers to buy alcohol and drink at home.
While scholars continue to investigate the impact of alcohol restrictions on populations, emerging evidence suggests mixed results.Alcohol restrictions had both positive and negative effects across the world.Some countries reported a general increase in alcohol purchases and use during COVID-19.Koopmann et al. (2020) state that in Germany, alcohol revenue increased by 6.1% demonstrating an increase in alcohol purchases.Similar findings were noted in the United States where there was an increase in the amount of alcohol consumed as different states implemented stay-at-home orders (see Boschuetz et al., 2020;Pollard et al., 2020).Furthermore, an increase in substance and alcohol use disorders has been found due to virus-related isolation (Clay & Parker, 2020;Killgore et al., 2021;Neill et al., 2020;Ramalho, 2020;Satre et al., 2020;Usher et al., 2020).Alcohol misinformation and consumption of illicit brews were also found during COVID-19 lockdowns (Delirrad & Mohammadi, 2020;Nadkarni et al., 2020;Neufeld et al., 2020).In the African continent, there is a dearth of literature on the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns and alcohol bans.However, existing evidence provides mixed conclusions.While some studies have noted a reduction in alcohol-attributable harm (De Jong et al., 2020;Morris et al., 2020;Moultrie et al., 2021;Navsaria et al., 2021) others have reported an increase in alcohol harms (Nduna & Tshona, 2021;Sediri et al., 2020).These mixed conclusions were evident across most African countries.While these findings are incisive and provide useful insights, they do not shed light into how individuals experienced alcohol in the African continent.In other words, we do not know how COVID-19 lockdowns and alcohol restrictions impacted drinking experiences in Africa.For example, it is unclear how home drinking, social isolation, and strict enforcement shaped (and were shaped by) drinking experiences across the African continent during the COVID-19 pandemic.It is important to consider the unique ways in which individuals' experiences were shaped by COVID-19 lockdowns and alcohol bans to offer lessons for policy development in non-Western contexts.In this paper, alcohol bans refer to strictly prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol to deal with the threat of COVID-19.In most African countries, alcohol bans were implemented during hard lockdowns to deal with the perceived risk posed by social interactions during drinking sessions especially in bars and other licensed premises.

COVID-19 and Alcohol Bans in Botswana
Like other African countries, the Botswana government imposed a hard lockdown on March 28, 2020 followed by a declaration of the State of Public Emergency on April 2, 2020.The state of emergency empowered the President to make emergency regulations to protect the nation against COVID-19.At the time of this decision, Botswana had not yet officially registered a case of COVID-19.The move was therefore seen as a preventive measure that allowed the government to plan and manage the spread of the virus.During the hard lockdown, no movement was allowed in Botswana unless one was classified as an essential service worker.Citizens were required to apply for COVID-19 travel permits to get essential supplies from grocery stores or go to health facilities.Foreign nationals were also not allowed to enter Botswana during the lockdown period except those with valid working permits.The aim of the hard lockdown was to contain the risk of COVID-19 by restricting social interactions.One of the measures adopted by the government of Botswana was to ban the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol.This was initially done on the 20th of March 2020 where bars, nightclubs, club liquor outlets and festivals were prohibited from selling alcohol through the Liquor (Amendment) Regulations of 2020 (Government of Botswana, 2020).Bottle stores and liquor depots who trade as wholesalers were exempt from these regulations and allowed to trade between 1,000 and 2,000 hr between Monday and Thursdays.However, these regulations were repealed by the Liquor Amendment Regulations of 2020 (Statutory Instrument 42 of 2020) when the government of Botswana declared a hard lockdown on the 28th of March 2020.The trading and consumption of all alcohol products was totally banned after the government declared this lockdown.Bottle stores and other liquor wholesales were prohibited from selling alcohol during this period.The purpose of alcohol bans especially on bars and other licensed premises was to limit social interactions and the spread of COVID-19.Alcohol consumption was perceived to be a high-risk activity for COVID-19 transmission especially in bars and other drinking outlets that attract crowds.
Imposing lockdowns and restricting access to alcohol was not unique to Botswana as many other countries in sub-Saharan Africa took similar measures.For example, Rehm et al. (2020) report that in South Africa, a number of restrictions were placed on alcohol consumption on March 18, 2020, that included a reduction in the number of people who could be accommodated in on-site premises.In the new regulations, only 50 people were allowed to drink on-site at a time.Similarly, in Namibia, there was a total ban on alcohol consumption when the country implemented a hard lockdown on March 27, 2020.Lastly, in Malawi, alcohol sales were allowed as takeaway when the country imposed a lockdown on April 18, 2020.Although on-site consumption was prohibited, people could buy alcohol and drink at home away from licensed premises (Maker, 2020).What this essentially means is that although countries placed some controls on alcohol consumption, their strategies varied.In Botswana, there is a specific need to investigate the impact of COVID-19 alcohol restrictions on drinking experiences.This is important given the recent literature that has documented unique drinking patterns in Botswana (see Maphisa & Mosarwane, 2022;Sebeelo, 2020;Sebeelo & Belgrave, 2021).An investigation of the impact of lockdowns provides a nuanced understanding of how drinkers dealt with and were impacted by alcohol restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Method
Data used for study was obtained from a doctoral dissertation on alcohol policy development that was completed in the Department of Sociology at the University of Miami, USA, in May 2021.The study adopted grounded theory approach where data collection and analysis were done simultaneously (Charmaz, 2014).Data was collected between May and July 2020 as COVID-19 was rapidly spreading across the world.The grounded theory steps included open-ended interviews, open and focused coding, constant comparison, memo writing and thematic generation.Since there was an international travel ban, telephone interviews were done from the United States with participants in Botswana.Telephone interviews were the most relevant data collection method as many countries had put in place COVID-19 protocols that required social distancing.Interviews were mainly open-ended and allowed participants to speak openly and freely about their drinking experiences during the alcohol ban and lockdown in Botswana.Since the study focused on the first lockdown, participants were asked questions about how the first alcohol ban affected them, what they thought of it, and how they coped with the effects of the ban.To access participants, I used purposive sampling where I contacted people whom I knew drank alcohol in Botswana, interviewed them and asked them to refer other drinkers.Since my objective was to understand drinking experiences during COVID-19, I only included individuals who had been active drinkers for a year preceding the study.All participants had to be over the age of 18 which is the legal drinking age in Botswana.Using an interview guide, I interviewed 20 people, 9 women and 11 men.Interviews lasted between 30 mins to an hour.Most participants were middle-aged, educated, employed, and identified as middle-class.Ethical approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Miami, USA ( 20200306).

Data Analysis
To analyze interviews, I purposively selected and analyzed data that was specific to COVID-19 lockdowns and alcohol bans.I read through all the data and selected excerpts that were relevant to the experiences of drinking during COVID-19.After selecting relevant data, I coded it line-by-line.At this stage, my aim was to see the nuance in my data and to "take compelling events apart and analyze what constitutes them and how they occurred" (Charmaz, 2014, p. 124).I then grouped data that logically fit and aligned with experiences about COVID-19 and alcohol restrictions.After grouping data, I focused the codes to gain control of my data.Focused coding allowed for a comparative process and to determine the emergent thematic categories.These themes aligned with issues around the rationale for restricting alcohol during COVID-19.After this process, I found themes that relate to support for government bans, opposition to alcohol bans, and adjusting drinking practices.These themes are not mutually exclusive and permeated the experiences of drinkers as they dealt with alcohol bans in Botswana.In the next section, I discuss these themes with direct quotes from participants.To maintain confidentiality, the names used are pseudonyms.

Results
In the current study, participants' views on alcohol restrictions were mixed.The analysis suggests three interrelated themes: support for alcohol bans, opposition to alcohol bans and adjusting drinking practices.These themes permeated through the participants narratives as they dealt with COVID-19 lockdowns.

Support for Bans
Some participants supported governments' efforts to restrict alcohol use due to COVID-19.Their views suggest that limiting people's access to alcohol was intended to protect them and was for their own good.Upon being asked whether they thought the alcohol ban was justified and how it impacted their lives, Nannie (20, F), a young female participant stated that, Participant: It was very effective, though not 100%, it reduced big crowds.Interviewer: So, what did you do during the ban?How did it affect you?Participant: I was fine with it because my alcohol consumption is very low.It did not affect me that much.Most of the time I was reading, and watching movies to pass time.
A male participant explained how the ban did not really affect him that much as he does not drink a lot.Kora (43, M) supported the ban and stated that, The above accounts suggest that some participants supported the alcohol ban and reaped benefits by finding other "productive things" to do.From the interview data, participants who reported that they generally drink less supported the ban as it benefited them, or at least did not cause them a sense of deprivation.They reported taking time-off from alcohol to engage in other "meaningful" activities such as cooking and reading.Boadi (35, F) affirmed the ban and noted that without it, the number of COVID cases could have increased, Participant: It was obviously effective, but to what degree was it effective?I would say if it wasn't of the ban, we could have had a disaster, the cases were going to increase exponentially.The increase we currently noticing is quite subtle.Interviewer: How did you personally feel about the alcohol ban?What did you do during the ban?Participant: I felt it was the right call by the government.I wasn't happy but because I thought and still think it was the right the call, I had to abide by it.For most of the time I was working, studying and watching movies.
In the above experience, Boadi supports the alcohol ban by invoking the idea of a looming "disaster."Her narrative suggests fear of the virus that might have influenced her support for the alcohol ban.Some participants spoke about sacrificing the temporary joy of alcohol consumption to assist the country to deal with the virus.Using his experience as a health worker, Game (M, 35) emphasized that his personal joy was secondary to the country's efforts to deal with COVID-19, Working in the health sector, I looked at it in a different perspective.I saw more benefits for the country than my personal joy.I kept a few bottles of alcohol which helped me to drink with a limit.Going forward I want to practice that same trend.
Similarly, Semos (28, F) suggested that preserving life is paramount over personal joy.That is, even though banning alcohol negatively affected people employed in the alcohol industry, life comes first, Interviewer: What do you think of the alcohol ban?Participant: It was very effective.
Interviewer: How did it affect you?Participant: There are other people who are employed in the alcohol industry, and I was afraid that should the situation persist, they will end up losing jobs.There are others who brew alcohol for sale in depots, they were also not allowed to sell during the ban, so they did not have an income during the ban.But on the other hand, health comes first.You can revive and stimulate the economy, but cannot buy health and bring back life.
Overall, participants who supported the alcohol ban referenced the impact of COVID-19 and thought the government of Botswana had the moral duty to protect its citizens.Even though some acknowledged the loss of jobs, and the devastation of the alcohol industry, they still advocated for an interventionist model where government assumes control of the well-being of the population (Brinkerhoff et al., 2019).In supporting the alcohol ban, most people surrendered the authority to deal with COVID-19 to the government.

Opposition to Bans
Although there was some support for alcohol bans, some participants did not support the alcohol ban and advocated for less government involvement.For participants who opposed the ban, they felt that the responsibility to drink rests with individuals who should be allowed to make their own decisions.
These participants felt the ban negatively impacted their drinking where they had to look for alternative ways to continue drinking.Victor (31, M), a male participant did not support the ban, Interviewer: What do you think of the alcohol ban?Participant: Government is tyrannical and misinformed.The ban was not done for any logical, scientific reasons.Interviewer: Do you think the ban was effective?How did it affect you?Participant: No, we made money bootlegging alcohol.Good business is bootlegging.Interviewer: How was this possible?There was a ban . . .Participant: We know people that know people, so it was not a big deal.The ban was uncalled for.I spent time looking for contraband alcohol.
Shalala (35, M) another male participant did not see the need for the ban.He stated that, I felt disappointed.Why didn't they ban sex?I never stopped drinking.I had other means of accessing the precious liquid.
Highlighting the impact on the economy, Giya (32, M) stated that, Government's action is crippling the economy and encouraging the black market such as illegal importation of alcohol.The ban was not ideal because it encouraged people to brew their own concoctions that are a health hazard.I just waited for the ban to be lifted because I can survive without alcohol.
For participants opposed to government's interventions, restricting access to alcohol negatively impacted their drinking.Some suggest that the alcohol ban resulted in the illegal black market where bootlegging was rife.They specifically stated the alcohol ban did not stop them from drinking alcohol as there was plenty of contraband alcohol available during the first lockdown.Others noted that alcohol restrictions were ill-conceived and did not consider the economic impact, especially for people who eked a living from alcohol and its associated industries.Kora (M, 43) suggests the ban was not effective, It was an ill-informed decision.I am not a heavy drinker and so I had my few bottles of whisky which carried me throughout the ban.But besides that, I did more of backyard gardening because I now had plenty time at home.I did a lot of gardening.
Responses from some participants suggest that some drinkers did not buy into policy interventions that sought to protect them from the virus.These drinkers wanted to be allowed to drink and exercise their own individual responsibility at the same time protecting themselves from the coronavirus.The belief that "government is tyrannical and misinformed" suggest that drinkers wanted to be allowed access to alcohol despite the threat posed by COVID-19.These participants wanted individual responsibility to drink alcohol without the government intervention.

Adjusting Drinking Practices
Over and above participants supporting and opposing the state intervention on alcohol consumption during COVID-19, many people adjusted their drinking to suit the new reality.Since most people worked from home, they reported drinking at odd times that they would normally not be drinking.Some participants also stated that they were looking for alcohol in the morning or early afternoon, a practice that was new to them.Thonos (40, F) remarked that, Participant: This lockdown was quite strange.I found myself "hassling" for alcohol in the morning or early afternoons.Interviewer: What do you mean by "hassling"?Participant: I mean running around looking for alcohol.They closed bars at short notice and didn't give us time to stock for ourselves.So, the only way was to check around and see people who had something [alcohol].
The above narrative suggests that daytime was a beehive of alcohol-related activities as some participants spent time looking for alcohol.It is very important to emphasize that during the first lockdown, adherence to COVID-19 regulations that include alcohol prohibition was accompanied by a curfew that was strongly enforced by the police and military in Botswana.It is therefore not surprising that drinking alcohol would shift to daytime.Therefore, alcohol bans, curfews and enforcement all cohered to impact the experience of drinking in Botswana.In line with drinking adjustments due to alcohol bans and drinking at home, some participants mentioned that they drank throughout the day because they had "free" time.The "free" time relates to the longer spent at home due to the implementation of COVID-19 restrictions.Crottie (46, M) mentioned that he found himself drinking at odd hours, I am usually very strict with my alcohol.Even my wife knows that.I never drink in the morning.But somehow since we have been home during this period (lockdown), I have been drinking even in the morning.I could be working around the house and then grab a beer just to get in the right mood.
Hope (39, M) narrated how "loose" he became with his drinking, You know this working from home was a challenge.It was a new thing for all of us.I realized that I became "loose" with my drinking.I drank mostly after meals and when doing chores around the house.This does not normally happen when I work from office.
Closing bars and restricting access to alcohol led to a shift in drinking patterns among some participants.The "free" and unrestricted time that came with working from home meant that some participants could drink alcohol anytime, even at odd hours.As Crottie remarked above, working from home resulted in changes in drinking where he could grab a beer and drink in the morning compared to the pre-COVID period where he would probably be in an office.Overall, adjusting drinking practices was a result of home drinking that is less structured and does not have the "time limits" (Nicholls & Conroy, 2021) that are usually associated with bar drinking.

Discussion
The purpose of the study was to investigate the impact of alcohol restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Botswana.Study findings point to mixed reactions from alcohol consumers.While some supported alcohol restrictions, others opposed them.The variegated reactions to COVID-19 lockdowns provided governments with a dilemma on how to balance the health needs of individuals while upholding their freedoms.Malhotra and Kunal (2020) call this the "catch-22 of the COVID-19 lockdown."COVID-19 lockdowns posed this dilemma for governments especially for countries like Botswana and other parts of the Global South.By paying particular attention to the impact of alcohol ban during the COVID-19 pandemic in Botswana, this study also identified shifts in drinking patterns among participants.While lockdowns have been favored by governments to deal with the potential spread of COVID-19 (see De Jong et al., 2020;Rehm et al., 2020), the current analysis demonstrates the challenges of strict prohibition especially in non-Western contexts.Study data suggests that some drinkers thought lockdown measures interfered with their "private sphere" (Cato & Inoue, 2022), hence opposed lockdown measures.Drinkers did not want the government of Botswana to be a "nanny state" that restricts their individual drinking choices.Furthermore, by placing restrictions on alcohol during the COVID-19 pandemic, the government of Botswana adopted a neoliberal ideology that prioritized individual control and messaging.The neoliberal frames adopted during lockdowns placed the responsibility on individual drinkers.For example, not much is said about the dangers of drinking at home during lockdowns.The instruction for drinkers to stay away from bars, avoid gatherings and maintain social distancing in an effort to contain the spread of the virus neglected the dangers of home drinking in Botswana.The current data indicates that some drinkers opposed the alcohol restrictions and others shifted their drinking.The mixed reactions toward the alcohol ban draws attention to the complexities of a neoliberal ideology in resource-poor settings.In Botswana and other parts of the Global South where populations and communities have unique lived experiences, alcohol interventions that are individual based might not be effective.In essence, strict measures that prioritize individualism might attract resistance and opposition from the recipients of such measures.
The current study demonstrated that some drinkers who expressed fear for the COVID-19 virus supported the alcohol ban.Fear of the COVID-19 virus was central to individuals who supported alcohol bans especially during the early months of the pandemic.The finding accords with existing studies that link fear of the virus with support for lockdowns (Bol et al., 2021;Eggers & Harding, 2022;Reicher & Drury, 2021).Data from the current study suggest that when individuals are fearful, they allow the state to make choices on their behalf.It is important to emphasize that this support only works in the short-term.If the lockdown is prolonged, public support and the threat of risk decreases (Naumann et al., 2020).Support for lockdowns was also reported among participants who reported that their drinking was generally low, a finding that accords with existing studies in the alcohol literature (Holmila et al., 2009;Seo et al., 2015).For Botswana, this finding might not be entirely surprising given the higher rates of moderate and abstinent drinkers in the country (WHO, 2018).The alcohol ban was perceived not to have any impact on drinking patterns among those who reported low levels of drinking.These views might have influenced support for lockdowns especially in the early days of the pandemic.
While some drinkers supported lockdowns, others found them to be an infringement on their freedoms and drinking choices.Some participants expressed the need for the government to allow people to drink and make their own individual choices.Although the threat of COVID-19 was not undermined, drinkers still felt that there was no need for the state to interfere in their private drinking sphere.Study data suggests that drinkers spurned a paternalistic state that limited their drinking choices.Opposition to COVID-19 lockdowns has been noted and extends beyond alcohol consumption (see Kowalewski, 2021).Opposition and resistance to alcohol reforms is not entirely new to Botswana.Sebeelo (2020) for example, has argued that the 2008 alcohol reforms that included a 30% alcohol levy increase and its associated regulations were resisted by beer drinkers as it placed limits on people's choices.In the current study, the fear of COVID-19 did not alter people's beliefs about their drinking freedoms especially the need to exercise their own individual responsibility.Drinkers were bold and intentional about their drinking despite the possibility of contracting the virus.It is critical to emphasize that most participants in the study were educated and identified as middle-class.The belief in individual responsibility to access alcohol and protect themselves against COVID-19 might have been emboldened by their socio-economic status especially the high levels of education.This finding provides a good opportunity for further research.There is an opportunity to further explore how drinkers experience alcohol based on their class, gender and age during "strict" prohibition.Studies might also explore how these experiences play out when drinkers are confined to their homes.
Data from the study also point to an undercurrent of illegal activities such as bootlegging and "underground" sales of alcohol during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Botswana.Alcohol-related violations during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Botswana corroborates existing research that has reached similar conclusions especially in non-Western contexts (Mahadevan et al., 2021;Wichaidit et al., 2021).Participants reported that they were "hassling" and had "other means of accessing the precious liquid" points to a range of clandestine activities that ensured alcohol consumption goes on despite the lockdown and strict enforcement.In essence, the alcohol ban presented drinkers and traders with a "consciousness of opportunity" (Ewick & Selby, 2003) to continue drinking notwithstanding the lockdown.It is not entirely clear how drinkers managed to access alcohol given the stringent enforcement that was in place during the first lockdown.Since alcohol was partially banned on the 20th of March 2020 before the start of the first lockdown on the 28th of March 2020, we can speculate that some drinkers stockpiled alcohol from wholesalers who were not prohibited from trading in alcohol before the lockdown.Therefore, when the lockdown was announced, many people who had purchased alcohol sold it illegally to friends and acquittances.As the study demonstrated, many participants accessed alcohol through their close social networks and friends.Furthermore, there were several cases of illegal brewing and trading reported by law enforcement during the first lockdown.For example, by May 25, 2020, the Botswana Police Services (BPS) had registered over 2,280 cases of illegal brewing and sale of traditional liquor.Other violations include 192 cases of liquor sale by traders during the first lockdown (Botswana Police Service, 2020).These violations reported by law enforcement align with the participant narratives that there was a lot of illegal activities from both drinkers and traders during the alcohol ban.
The violation of "illegal brewing and sale of traditional liquor" needs context.First, the increase in traditional brews violations could be a result of the role of the internet and social media where there were many "recipes" about how to make alcohol from home.Since access to "legitimate" alcohol was restricted, many people could have resorted to the alcohol "recipes" that were posted online.This finding was also reported in India where Ghosh et al. (2020) state that social media users shared recipes about how to brew alcohol at home especially using the free rice that was rationed to people during lockdown in India.Second, brewing traditional liquor is a cultural trait in the Tswana culture (Sebeelo, 2021).Many people in Botswana, especially women are skilled in making home brews and traditional liquor.Therefore, the alcohol ban might have resulted in people using their cultural brewing skills to make and sell traditional liquor.In this case, participants might have used cultural tools to circumvent the effects of the alcohol ban.
The violations of COVID protocols point to challenges of strict prohibition especially in resourcelimited settings.As Nadkarni et al. (2020) state, "prohibition is an invitation for illegal trade for alcohol to flourish" (p.3).Although strict prohibition was encouraged by the WHO to deal with the threat of COVID-19, the Botswana experience suggest that banning alcohol resulted in several violations.What this implies is that there is a need to strike a balance between limiting access to alcohol and mitigating against the negative unintended consequences such as bootlegging and illegal brewing.This does not undermine the contribution of alcohol to health burdens but rather emphasize that some global policy measures cannot be uniformly applied across different contexts of the world.
It is evident from the study that banning alcohol resulted in people adjusting their drinking behaviors.As earlier stated, alcohol restrictions and curfews all cohered to impact drinking practices in Botswana.Some people reported drinking at odd times that they would ordinarily not be drinking in the pre-COVID era.It is important to note that in the study, it was not entirely clear whether this shift resulted in people increasing their drinking.While some studies have noted an increase in drinking due to longer time spent at home (see Barbosa et al., 2021;Schmits & Glowacz, 2020;Weerakoon et al., 2021), data from the current study only demonstrated a shift in the times of drinking.This finding accords with existing studies (see Nicholls & Conroy, 2021).For example, Caluzzi et al. (2021) recently found a shift in drinking structures during COVID-19 among 59 drinkers in Australia.Their study highlights that since people spent more time at home, the "personal boundaries and drinking norms associated with weekend drinking or weekday drinking similarly changed" (Caluzzi et al., 2021, p. 3).In Britain, Gordon-Wilson (2021) had similar conclusions and reported that COVID-19 led to reduced self-control among British consumers.She argued that "participants increased their alcohol consumption for socializing, ritual evolving, escapism and external reasons during the pandemic crisis" (Gordon-Wilson, 2021, p. 8).Findings of the current study demonstrate the complexities of negotiating alcohol restrictions and its impact on drinking practices.As the data suggest, drinking at home without the usual norms and "policing" (Nicholls & Conroy, 2021) that comes with bars and other licensed premises led to drinking at odd times.Home drinking provides a good opportunity for further research in Botswana and other parts of the Global South.This view echoes a recent call by Callinan and MacLean (2020) and others on the urgency of home drinking research.For Botswana and other developing countries, studies on home drinking are particularly relevant given the impact of COVID-19 on the spatial and temporal aspects of alcohol consumption in non-Western contexts.

Study Limitations
The current study has some limitations.A sample of 20 participants is small and should be cautiously generalized to other contexts.Participants were sourced from an urban area and extending findings to other areas must be treated with caution.Most participants were middle-aged, College-educated and identified as middle class.Poorer alcohol drinkers might have different views and alcohol experiences compared to those in this study.The other limitation concerns the use of telephones to collect data.They were impersonal and did not yield richer data.The study also focused on the first lockdown and did not determine if consumption patterns changed with subsequent lockdowns.Botswana implemented more lockdowns and alcohol bans after June 2020 and the dynamics of drinking might have changed with subsequent lockdowns.Future studies might show how different periods of alcohol restrictions impact consumption patterns.

Conclusion
This paper has examined the experience of COVID-19 lockdowns and alcohol bans in Botswana.It is evident that there were mixed reactions to COVID-19 lockdowns and the restrictions placed on alcohol consumption.While some drinkers supported alcohol bans, especially in the early months of the pandemic, others opposed them.More importantly, the alcohol ban had an impact on drinking contexts among drinkers in Botswana.It is argued here that the experience of alcohol bans during the COVID-19 pandemic provides a good opportunity for further research on drinking contexts during public health crises.Several cases of alcohol-related violations were also reported in South Africa, Nigeria, India and other parts of the Global South.These infractions direct attention toward the need to balance prohibition and the needs of drinkers to mitigate against the negative unintended consequences.
At a policy level, the changes in drinking times due to alcohol bans and spending longer time at home, provides a good opportunity for theoretically driven studies.Home drinking is an important yet understudied theme in non-Western contexts.As more studies especially in Western countries continue to document these experiences, more such studies are warranted in non-Western contexts.Countries like Botswana who were under a strict and highly enforced lockdown regime are ripe for theoretically informed studies that explore how alcohol restrictions shaped drinking experiences.Such research efforts might usher in new and unique ways in which drinkers in the Global South experienced alcohol during COVID-19, a period occasioned by strict and punitive alcohol restrictions.