But when the government takes hesitant steps and is caught in obviously conflicting and inconsistent positions related to regulating the industry, courts are given the opposite message. When that happens, the courts are less willing to recognise the uniquely destructive nature of tobacco and tend to treat tobacco like other legitimate products on the market. When the government holds the trump cards (the legislative strings), it can afford to be aggressive. There are signs that the health side may realise the warnings, despite the fact that litigation is assured. First, the government's track record on tobacco is attracting sufficient criticism that it will have to deliver some significant reforms on this issue. Second, the health minister is ambitious and has had a series of setbacks on a number of key health files. He now needs a "win" on the tobacco/health file. The industry's case The industry does not have a good case to block the introduction of the new warnings. The manufacturers tried to block warnings similar to those now on Canadian packages but the Supreme Court of Canada found little sympathy for the industry position. Nine Supreme Court judges unanimously rejected the industry's request for a stay: "Further, both parties agree that past studies have shown that health warnings on tobacco product packages do have some effects in terms of increasing public awareness of the dangers of smoking and in reducing the overall incidence of smoking in our society. . . . The public interest in health is of