What you are referring to is a form of "regulatory capture" of the media as a result of their pharmaceutical ad revenues, which are huge...and passed on to us.
I am no libertarian, and I have never smoked cigarettes, but I have always deeply resented government forays into those two areas, not to mention ten thousand other areas, how much water my toilet is allowed to flush, what kind of light bulbs I will be able to buy, what "safety options" are made "mandatory", etc.
I have read enough of your posts over the years to know you know where I am coming from on this...we may differ, and that is fine. It is where I stand.
It is better to be right than consistent, IMO, but sometimes it is difficult to determine which horn I want to get gored by, and if they forced them to stop advertising, it would be like this in some corner of my brain if I hear they banned them:

If censoring big alcohol and big tobacco advertising is a good thing, then so is censoring big pharma advertising.
If big pharma advertising should not be censored, then neither should big alcohol or big tobacco advertising.