Thursday’s Boston Globe reported that Massachusetts wants to “force stores to post graphic signs vs. smoking.”
Such as the one to the left, which appears in New York City stores.
The signs are modeled on a nothing-left-to-the-imagination campaign in New York City, where signs showing the health effects of smoking began sprouting in 11,500 shops last December. Massachusetts health authorities provided copies of the New York City posters as an illustration of what their campaign will look like.
Discuss among yourselves whether this is all well and good, but note the penalty for defying the proposed state mandate:
Retailers who refuse to display the signs within 2 feet of tobacco displays and cash registers could face fines of $100 to $300.
Great, except is that $100 to $300 a day? A month? A year? A lifetime?
Makes a difference, no?
Campaign Outsider 
I’d love to see a study of the efficacy of anti-smoking advertising. Too often, it feels like these ads are put together by adults who create messages that they *think* will push teenagers to avoid smoking — but do these messages really work with teenagers? Advertising that is good at preventing adults from starting to smoke is pretty worthless, since most smokers start as teenagers. This feels analogous to abstinence-only sex ed — created by adults who seem to think they know what they’re doing but really without a clue about how teenagers’ minds work.
Over the years Massachusetts has produced some truly dreadful anti-smoking ads aimed at kids. But, to be fair, they’ve also done some good work. No ads, however, have the slightest chance of outweighing peer influence, for better or worse.