I read the same paper back when i was studying panopticon theory and the idea that behaviours can be affected by surroundings and exposure to visual stimulus, like bright advertising and such. I have to be honest I wasnt impressed with either the paper's qualitative and their quantitative evidence, plus it heavily leaned on focus group interviews, which doesnt supply an enormous amount of data at the best of times.

What I would say is, perhaps impotent was too strong, but inept I stand by. Putting pictures on cigarettes to stop people smoking, is like putting a bandage over a fatal gunshot, sure it might stop the blood for a while, but will it stop death. Call me niave, but i just think the idea of putting warning pictures on a harmful product, doesnt remove the issue entirely. Would it not be better to just do away with cigarettes all together. I know thats a bit idealistic.