if your objection is to "mass-brain washing", I think you're gonna have a lot of 1st amendment trouble arguing that case legally.
What were the arguments used to regulate the display and advertising of tobacco? Those might be a model for the advertising of other potentially harmful substances. Certainly how beer is advertised is no model to follow.
in any case, regardless of whether or not beer advertising is a good "model for society" is kinda irrelevant from the constitutional law perspective. the legal rulings have repeatedly found that commercial marketing is, with a few exceptions, free speech and that the government is limited in its ability to regulate that type of expression.
from an ethical perspective, I think that people living in a free society have an ethical responsibility to educate ourselves and our communities about drugs (of all kinds, including alcohol and tobacco) independently of the commercial promotion of those products. at some point you have to just let people be responsible from themselves. trying to enforce health and safety through prohibition or censorship is not a good strategy.
The idea should be that "it's your choice if you want to use it, but people shouldn't be mass-brain washed by ads into believing it's the best thing ever that they should buy."