Hey everyone, welcome back to My Weird Prompts. I am Corn, and I am joined as always by my brother.
Herman Poppleberry, ready to dive into the deep end. We have a really interesting one today from our housemate Daniel. He was telling us about a conversation he had recently about bringing kids into social spaces, like bars and cafes.
Yeah, and it is a topic that hits close to home for us, living here in Jerusalem where the social scene is so vibrant but also, let us be honest, a bit smoky sometimes. Daniel was mentioning that a friend of his felt his kids really benefited from being part of that adult social world, just being around the conversations and the energy. But as an asthmatic, Daniel is rightfully protective of his son, Ezra, when it comes to secondhand smoke.
It is a classic tension, right? You want the social integration, the developmental benefits of the village, but you are hitting this physical barrier of public health and environment. I have been looking into the sociology of these third places and how different cultures handle the presence of children in what we usually think of as adult spaces.
I love that term, third places. For those who might not be familiar, that is the concept from Ray Oldenburg in his book The Great Good Place. It refers to spaces that are not home and not work, but where community happens. Cafes, bars, public squares. And I think the question is, are children guests in those spaces, or are they members?
That distinction changes everything. If they are guests, we accommodate them with a high chair and maybe a coloring book. If they are members, the space itself has to be safe and inclusive for them by default. Daniel's frustration with the smoking situation in outdoor areas here is a perfect example of that friction.
So let us start with the philosophy of it. Why do we think there is this movement or this feeling that kids should be in these spaces? Daniel's friend mentioned developmental benefits. Herman, what does the research say about children being immersed in adult social environments?
It is fascinating, Corn. There is a lot of work in developmental psychology, specifically by Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger, about what they call legitimate peripheral participation. It is a fancy way of saying that children learn by being on the edges of adult activity before they are ready to fully join in. When a child sits in a cafe while their parents talk, they are not just sitting there. They are absorbing the cadence of conversation, the social cues, the way people resolve minor conflicts, even the way we order a coffee.
It is like a social apprenticeship.
Precisely. In many traditional cultures, there is no such thing as a kid space versus an adult space. Everything is a shared space. When we sequester children into playgrounds or daycare centers exclusively, we are effectively removing the scaffolding they need to understand how the broader world works. I think that is what Daniel's friend was picking up on. The kids become more socially fluent because they have been practicing in the real world, not a simulated one.
I can see that. I have noticed that kids who are brought into those environments often seem more comfortable talking to people of different ages. They do not see adults as this separate, mysterious species. But here is the rub. If the environment is literally harmful to their health, the developmental benefit is being traded for a physical cost. Daniel's point about secondhand smoke is huge. Especially for someone with asthma, it is not just an annoyance. It is a medical trigger.
And that is where the cultural piece comes in. It is interesting because Israel has actually quite progressive laws on paper regarding smoking in public places. There was a big push back in two thousand seven and two thousand twelve, and then a major expansion in two thousand nineteen that banned smoking in public squares, playgrounds, and even outdoor areas of restaurants unless they are specifically designated and partitioned. But as Daniel noted, the enforcement is... well, it is often more of a suggestion than a rule.
It feels like a cultural lag. The law changed, but the social contract did not quite catch up. You see people lighting up under a no smoking sign all the time. And if you are the parent who speaks up, you often feel like the killjoy. You are the one disrupting the vibe, even though you are the one trying to protect your child's lungs.
I have been looking into how other countries have managed this, because it is not a lost cause. There are places that have successfully made that transition. If you look at Australia, for example, they have some of the strictest smoking laws in the world. In states like Victoria and New South Wales, smoking is banned not just inside, but in all outdoor dining areas and even within four meters of a building entrance.
Four meters? That is a significant buffer.
Right. And the key there was not just the law, but the social normalization. It became socially unacceptable to smoke around food or children. If you light up in an outdoor cafe in Melbourne, people will look at you like you just started a bonfire in the middle of the table. The burden of the awkwardness shifted from the non smoker to the smoker.
That is the shift we are missing here. Right now, the burden is on the person who wants clean air to ask for it. It should be the other way around. But I wonder, Herman, does that strictness ever backfire? Does it make those spaces feel less like a community and more like a regulated zone?
Some people argue that it kills the bohemian spirit of a cafe or a bar. But the data suggests the opposite. When spaces become smoke free, foot traffic often goes up because you have opened the doors to a huge demographic that was previously avoiding the area. Families, people with respiratory issues, or just people who do not want their clothes to smell like an ashtray. You are not losing community; you are expanding it.
It is about the definition of the public. If the public includes children and the elderly and people with asthma, then the space has to reflect that. I want to go back to the child's perspective for a second. If we are in a culture like ours where smoking is still prevalent in these third places, what is the message we are sending to the kids?
It is a message of exclusion, even if it is unintentional. We are saying, this is a space for adults to engage in their habits, and if you cannot handle it, you do not belong here. It reinforces that wall between the child's world and the adult's world. And for a kid like Ezra, who might see his dad struggling to breathe or getting frustrated, it associates social gatherings with stress rather than connection.
Right. And then you get this phenomenon where parents just stop going out. They isolate themselves at home, which leads to parental burnout and a loss of that social network that is so vital for raising kids. We talk about the village, but the village needs a physical location. If the cafe is off limits, the village starts to shrink.
I was looking at some interesting models in Northern Europe, specifically in places like Sweden and Norway. They have a very strong culture of bringing children everywhere. You will see strollers lined up outside cafes in the middle of winter. But because they have such high compliance with non smoking norms, it is a non issue. There is a sense of collective responsibility for the environment. Even the United Kingdom has made massive strides recently with their goal of a smoke free generation, pushing to ban smoking in even more outdoor public spaces to protect children.
That collective responsibility is so interesting. It is not just about the law; it is about the shared understanding of what a public space is for. I wonder if there is a middle ground. Daniel mentioned that even when there are designated smoke free areas, they are often not enforced. Why do you think that is so common in certain cultures?
I think it comes down to a conflict between two different values. On one hand, you have the value of individual freedom, the right to do what you want in an open space. On the other, you have the value of the common good and public health. In cultures where the individual freedom to smoke is deeply ingrained as a part of the social identity, like it is in parts of the Mediterranean and the Middle East, people see the enforcement of smoking bans as an intrusion.
It is seen as a lack of chill, almost.
You've got it. Being chill is valued over being compliant. But the problem is that one person's chill is another person's asthma attack. I think we need to reframe it. It is not about being a rule follower; it is about hospitality. If a cafe wants to be a place of hospitality, it has to be hospitable to everyone.
So, let us talk about the countries that are doing this well. You mentioned Australia and Scandinavia. What about North America? I know in many parts of the United States and Canada, smoking in public is almost entirely gone.
Yeah, Canada is a great example. They have moved toward what they call smoke free outdoor spaces in a very systematic way. In provinces like Ontario, the Smoke Free Ontario Act makes it illegal to smoke on any restaurant or bar patio, period. No exceptions. And they have seen a massive shift in how these spaces are used. They have become much more multi generational. You will see a group of friends having beers at one table and a family with a toddler at the next, and it does not feel like a conflict because the air is clear.
And that is the dream, right? That seamless integration. I think about the developmental side again. When a child sees adults interacting in a healthy, respectful way in a public space, they are learning the blueprint for their own future social life. If that space is clouded by smoke and tension over rules, the lesson is different.
There is also the health aspect that we cannot ignore. I was reading a study from researchers at Stanford University about the impact of outdoor secondhand smoke. A lot of people think that because you are outside, the smoke just disappears. But the concentration of P-M two point five particulates in a crowded outdoor seating area can actually be as high as it is in an indoor space where smoking is allowed, especially if you are within a few feet of the source.
That is a huge misconception. People think the wind just takes it away.
It doesn't. Especially if there is an awning, a patio umbrella, or if the tables are close together. For a child, whose lungs are still developing and who has a faster respiratory rate, they are taking in more of those toxins per pound of body weight than an adult. So Daniel's instinct to be protective is backed by very solid science. This is not just about a bad smell; it is about physiological impact.
So, if we are looking for a path forward, especially for people living in places where the culture hasn't shifted yet, what are the options? Do we just wait for the law to be enforced, or is there a way to advocate for these spaces?
I think it starts with patronizing the places that do it right. There are a few cafes here in Jerusalem that have made a point of being family friendly and strictly enforcing their no smoking areas. We need to vote with our feet and our wallets. But there is also a role for community advocacy. If enough people tell a business owner, I would come here more often with my kids if I didn't have to worry about the smoke, that starts to change the economic calculation.
It is about making the invisible demand visible. Business owners often only hear from the people who want to smoke. They do not hear from the families who are staying home because of the smoke. We need to bridge that information gap.
And I think we can look to the concept of the family club that you see in places like the United Kingdom. Places like Maggie and Rose or even modern family friendly taprooms are specifically designed to be all ages. They have a bar, they have good food, they have a workspace, and they have a dedicated, safe area for kids. It is not a playground; it is a social club where children are treated as full members.
That sounds like a great evolution of the third place. It is not just a bar that happens to allow kids; it is a space designed for the reality of modern life, where people have children and still want to have a social existence.
That's right. And the air quality is a foundational part of that design. You cannot have a family inclusive space that is full of smoke. It is a contradiction in terms. I think as more people work remotely and as the lines between work, home, and social life continue to blur, the demand for these high quality, healthy third places is only going to grow.
I hope so. I really feel for Daniel and other parents in his position. It is exhausting to have to be the smoke police every time you want to go out for a coffee. It turns a relaxing activity into a confrontation.
It really does. But I am optimistic. If you look at the trajectory over the last twenty years, the global trend is clearly toward cleaner air and more inclusive public spaces. Even in places with a strong smoking culture, the younger generation is smoking less and valuing health more. The cultural shift is happening; it is just a matter of how fast we can push it.
You know, Herman, I was thinking about the historical context of this. It is easy to forget that not that long ago, people smoked on airplanes and in hospitals. We look back at that now and it seems insane. I think in another twenty years, we will look back at the idea of smoking in a crowded outdoor cafe next to a baby and think the same thing.
I do too. We are in that awkward middle phase of a major cultural transition. It is the friction of the old world meeting the new world. And in the meantime, people like Daniel are the ones feeling that friction most acutely.
So, what are the practical takeaways here? If you are a parent who wants to integrate your child into your social life but you are dealing with a smoky environment, what do you do?
First, do the research. Look for the outliers. Every city has a few places that are ahead of the curve. Support them. Second, do not be afraid to be the one who asks. Sometimes a polite request to a manager can lead to a change in how they handle their outdoor seating. They might not even realize it is a major deterrent for families.
And third, maybe we can look at how we organize our own social lives. Instead of meeting at the traditional smoky bar, maybe we suggest a park or a cafe that we know has better air quality. We can lead the shift in our own social circles.
Yes, we have the power to define the norms of our own groups. If we prioritize clean air and inclusion for the kids in our group, that influence ripples outward.
I think about the developmental benefit again. If we can find those clean, safe spaces, the benefit to the kids is immense. Seeing their parents as whole people, with friends and interests and a place in the community. That is a powerful lesson in what it means to be a social being.
It really is. It gives them a sense of belonging that goes beyond the nuclear family. They see themselves as part of a larger fabric. And that is the real goal of the village, isn't it? To show a child that there is a whole world out there that they are a part of.
Well said, Herman. I think we have covered a lot of ground here. From the philosophy of legitimate peripheral participation to the specifics of smoking policy in Australia and Canada. It is a complex issue, but at its heart, it is about what kind of public life we want to build.
Right. Do we want a public life that is exclusive and segmented, or one that is inclusive and healthy for everyone? I think the answer is clear, but the work of getting there is what we are in the middle of right now.
I want to thank Daniel for sending this in. It is such a relatable struggle for so many people, especially here in Jerusalem. And it is a great reminder that our physical environment and our social philosophy are deeply linked.
Definitely. If you have thoughts on this, or if you live in a city that has found a great way to balance social spaces with public health, we would love to hear from you. You can get in touch through our website at myweirdprompts dot com.
And hey, if you have been enjoying the show, we would really appreciate it if you could leave us a review on your podcast app or on Spotify. It genuinely helps other people find the show and join the conversation.
Yeah, it makes a big difference for us. This has been Episode six hundred eight of My Weird Prompts.
Thanks for listening, everyone. We will catch you in the next one.
Goodbye!
