Alcohol does not impact surrounding people in the same way as cigarette smoke. While it may present a social disruption, it does not present a direct health risk to many passers-by. (If you think cars and factories are a greater risk, you might be right. Care to talk about how to deal with those too, instead of taking it for granted?)
Here you have an industry that has made _huge_ amounts of money selling a product widely thought to be _primarily_ (not just sometimes) harmful, a product with an area effect, and also an industry that has both glamourized that product and often misrepresented the degree of harm involved. Check out all the claims about filters and levels of chemicals.
If you think that sexualized advertising is problematic, then you have to concede that _much_ of the advertising industry is crossing your line for minors. Sex is a major, major theme for many sorts of advertising. Personally, I'm concerned that youth are often not educated about 1) sexuality as a set of evolutionary and practical topics and 2) about the ways advertising is generally constructed and seeks to influence them. You might say that is up to parents, but I think many of those parents are caught in a social trap that says 1) children must not hear about sex too early and 2) 'material wealth and advertising are simply the way of the world, business will do as it will. If my child wants all sorts of material stuff, well so does everyone else... Better he or she is ambitious and materialistic, because I don't feel I can control the amount of cancer-causing stuff out there for him or her to buy/breathe anyway.'
It's not consistent for people to express upset with advertising, and yet go along with social mores like those, which give it free reign. When that happens, the consumers don't end up with an _informed_ choice. They buy themselves an environment where the companies are allowed to keep adding harmful stuff - and to keep advertising it in devious ways - until the market is saturated with unpleasant choices. Often they do so by gut reaction, and without giving it a whole lot of thought. (Jules Henry's _Culture Against Man_ is one good book on this.) So unless you prefer a dumb, so-called "free" society burying itself over a thoughtful one that sustains human life at higher quality (quality, not just years on medication)...
If you believe the social state of "nature" is always bad, you will bring this situation upon yourself. But such a decision is limited to a specific politics in certain industrial societies. It comes from resignation toward greed and a lowered quality of life. That is to say, lower in many respects than herding societies (herders have less pollution, more exercise, and more free time). If _all_ you want in life is a harsh state of nature, isn't there still a jungle somewhere that people can have a fair chance at hunting wild boars. I don't see the need for a crueler existence where there are no healthy boars to hunt, and more sickly humans that only hunt money. Unless you're in the camp that has the most money. They get to soak up their perqs today, forget the cost tomorrow, and buy themselves homes wherever the air doesn't stink yet. Not that I'm voting for a generally harsh social order as supposed proof of my own value, to begin with.
And for those who would suggest I must be fooling myself: I don't smoke, I don't drink (although I might prefer it to smoking), I don't even do soft drugs (which I doubt are so harmful). I worry about the health value of foods I can afford (organic tends to be expensive), but I believe I've improved my diet significantly. And I repeat, I take mass transit. It can be done. It could be done better if more people would try it. And at least on mass transit: the Earth would be more friendly to us and to your children.