Tobacco/Vape Companies and free speech-should there be censorship in commercial speech?

For years there has been an infamous, ongoing battle amongst Tobacco Companies versus health and wellness groups, and of course they involved the government. In recent times, the tobacco industries have created a newer smokeless version of their nicotine products, such as Vapes and Electronic cigarettes.

Questions and lawsuits have arose due to these new products finding themselves in the hands of minors rather than their main target demographic of smokers who are trying to quit smoking or are looking for a smokeless alternative for those above the age of 18.

Many health and wellness groups are worried about the youth and are wondering what is attracting them to these products, does it have to do with the language or marketing tactics that these tobacco companies are using?

The term, "Commercial speech” used as a constitutional doctrine initially as an exception from the First Amendment’s protection was suggested by a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in 1942. The doctrine approached full maturity as the Court came to terms that even tobacco advertising was entitled to significant First Amendment protection around 2001.The real question now is, should there be censorship or protection on the tobacco industry's First Amendment in advertisements?

In the terms on advertising, there should be, in my opinion, some form of requirement on what should be included in the tobacco/cigarettes advertisements. In medical commercial speech, they are required to share all known possible side effects or any known hazards to be listed to the public, but a recreational substance being ingested is not required to share their possible side effects, or hazards as well? Is it not a known fact that smoking is known to be hazardous? What about how or what they say in their advertisements to attract their consumers? (which clearly has started to attract young minors)

While the First Amendment ruled that commercial speech that is neither "false nor misleading" is fully protected speech, does that include the industry stating that smoking is in-fact, "cool"? How is this claim measurable and seen as not misleading? Why does an icon for an adult product need a child-cartoon like mascot to attract their attention to their product? If marketers were smart, they would know what would attract adults to their products, I believe that we are getting the wool pulled over our eyes and that tobacco/e-cig marketers know they already have adult smokers hooked and they need to attract the younger audience to gain their new wave of life long customers.