Cite as: 533 U. S. 525 (2001)
Opinion of Stevens, J.
tent that it does target speech it may well run into constitutional problems, as the connection between the ends the statute purports to serve and the means it has chosen are dubious. Nonetheless, I am ultimately persuaded that the provision is unobjectionable because it is little more than an adjunct to the other sales practice restrictions. As the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can properly legislate the placement of products and the nature of displays in its convenience stores, I would not draw a distinction between such restrictions and height restrictions on related product advertising. I would accord the Commonwealth some latitude in imposing restrictions that can have only the slightest impact on the ability of adults to purchase a poisonous product and may save some children from taking the first step on the road to addiction.
III
Because I strongly disagree with the Court's conclusion on the pre-emption issue, I dissent from Parts II-A and II-B of its opinion. Though I agree with much of what the Court has to say about the First Amendment, I ultimately disagree with its disposition or its reasoning on each of the regulations before us.12
12 Reflecting my partial agreement with the Court, I join Parts I, II-C, II-D, and III-B-1 and concur in the judgment reflected in Part III-D.
605
Page: Index Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81Last modified: October 4, 2007