The plaintiffs' (the tobacco companies) objections to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and policies decided upon by the Center for Tobacco Control included: A full ban on the use of colors and graphics on cigarette and smokeless tobacco packaging A ban on the ability for a tobacco company to sponsor an event or piece of merchandise with their brand name The FDAs authorization of "further restrictions", allowing federal, state, local, and Indian governments to enact legislation more strict than the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act A mandated size increase of tobacco warnings on packaging, including "color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking to accompany the label statements" The FDAs ability to regulate relative risk claims made on Modified Risk Tobacco Products (MRTPs) Requiring that products may not advertise the fact that they are regulated by the FDA A ban on all forms of outdoor advertising A ban on the ability to include samples and gifts with the sale of tobacco products Notably, the tobacco companies argued that the increased size of warning labels on cigarette packing and new restrictions on the design of the packaging interfere with their First Amendment rights to communicate with adult consumers

These brands typically contain tar levels below 10 mg per cigarette, compared to 1215 mg in regular options
"Never before in the United States have producers of a lawful product been required to use their own packaging and advertising to convey an emotionally-charged government message urging adult consumers to shun their products," the companies wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C
Greasy food Strictly avoid deep or shallow fried snacks like patties, fried chicken, samosas as it can irritate the lymph nodes (tonsils)
If that's still too much arduous labor for you, why not just hook up a little gas-powered piston to shoot the cigarette into your mouth