Sounds extreme perhaps, but think about it... Isn't advertising all about trying to convince you to buy something you don't need? If you needed it (or even just wanted it), you wouldn't need advertising, you'd seek it out on your own.
Which is of course 99% bullshit since the vast majority is emotive and manipulative.
But to avoid this you could make advertising regulation 'white list' style. Only text based, only non-emotive descriptions of product function.
I mean take cola, their adverts are largely around the subtext of 'if you drink this you will have more friends, if you do not drink this you will be more lonely.' Of course this is never stated openly it's all in the subtext which given Colas efficient market defying profits seems to be incredibly effective.
This sounds very similar to the rules that non-commercial stations are bound to, per the FCC. Fines can be issued for underwriting spots that contain calls to action, price information, qualitative claims, or are simply too long.[0]
[0] http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2009/01/articles/fcc-fines-f...
There's plenty of truly bad advertising out there and it definitely needs stronger regulation, but lets not be overly enthusiastic about it.
If that's the only reason to keep advertising, it can easily be replaced by independent consumer advice, similar to 'Which?' magazine but with a much wider remit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Which%3F
In principle yes, but in practice the false advertising laws are way, way too lax.
> Lies aren't really the problem though, fooling us with truths we don't understand is.
True, but companies now tell bullshit that is so obvious to see through that it's often very clear whether they want to scam you or not. This again should be punished but currently isn't.