SHELBURNE retailer Murale Kandasany doubts the new display-hiding legislation will have much of an impact on smoking habits. Ontario retailers have until Saturday to cover their cigarette displays or face fines ranging from $4,000 to $10,000 for a first offence, and $100,000 to $150,000 for three or more offences.

The move is the latest in a series of measures in the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which the government boasts is one of the toughest in North America. The language of the act describes cigarette displays as "power walls" of tobacco advertising that should be hidden to discourage people, particularly youths, from smoking.

Some of those interviewed in Orangeville portray this latest move as pointless to downright hypocritical.

"We have adult magazines and lottery tickets that are in plain view," pointed out one convenience store clerk, "and you have to be 19 to buy them; just like cigarettes. Why are cigarettes being singled out? If they're so bad, why are they still legal?"

One reason they're still legal, perhaps, is that the sale of tobacco products generates close to $6 billion in tax revenue annually. Close to $45 of the price of a carton goes into federal and provincial coffers.

Not only do retailers have to comply with the new legislation by hiding the displays, they must do so at their own expense. As well, the retailers interviewed are far from convinced the action will have any real effect.

"I really don't think so," reasons Mila Ahn, owner of First Variety on First Street. "If people smoke already, they are still going to."

Ms. Ahn doesn't subscribe to the theory that cigarette displays are forms of tobacco advertising. "With the vast increase in the price of smokes, people are asking what's the cheapest. They're not looking at the packaging and saying 'I want that one.' "

Murale Kandasany, owner of a Daisy Mart franchise in Shelburne, has been less hardhit by the new legislation, insofar as Daisy Mart's parent company, Beckers, has paid for his cigarette display to be covered up.

But he, too, doubts the legislation will have any real effect. "I don't think it will be any different. I've talked to people from the tobacco companies and they say experiences in other provinces haven't shown any difference.

"Then again," he shrugs, "they're tobacco salesmen. Of course, they're going to say that."

Mr. Kandasany also wonders whether an opposite reaction may come as a result of the display covers, by making cigarettes seem even more forbidden and thus more enticing to some youngsters.

There are also concerns that drastic price increases and sales restrictions will give rise to criminal activity.

The Ontario Convenience Store Association (OCSA) estimates that 37 per cent of all cigarettes in the province are now being sold illegally, and also estimates that it will rise to 50 per cent by 2010 .As well, the OCSA collected cigarette butts outside schools recently and found 24 per cent of high school students who smoke were using illegal cigarettes.

The legislation is not without its supporters. "Out of sight, out of mind," figures one of those interviewed. "It's not going to stop people smoking, but it's going to cut down on the impulse buying."

A smoker who had just purchased two packs at a Mac's Milk convenience store scoffed at the suggestion buying cigarettes is something done by impulse. "I came here specifically to buy cigarettes. It's not an impulse buy. If I happen to pick up a chocolate bar or a magazine, that's an impulse buy."

The legislation even drew criticism from an ex-smoker who termed it "a colossal waste of a private business's money.

"I smoked for 16 years. It was my choice. I knew the risks. I was never influenced to smoke by anything but peer pressure. Attractive packaging, marketing and (tobacco sponsored) sporting events meant nothing in my decision to smoke."

He lamented the loss of the Benson and Hedges Symphony of Fire, an annual fireworks display on the Toronto waterfront that fell by the wayside after federal legislation banned tobacco companies from sponsoring events.

One woman, also a nonsmoker, feels the legislation has transcended being a smoking issue and become an infringement on individual rights. Terming the law "absolutely ridiculous," she added: "If they're going to cover up cigarettes, they might as well cover up booze and fatty fast foods. They're bad for you, too. Canada's supposed to be a country of freedoms. Laws like this are taking them away."

Finally, one woman provided an example to substantiate her argument that people's decision to buy a product is not based solely on whether they can see it. "My kids see vegetables in the store all the time, and they're not buying them."