I see the force of your argument, but you still have some flaws in your reasoning. The comment about beer advertising during sporting events has the most force--but you throw it away completely in comparing second hand smoke to drunk driving. Driving while impaired is an altogether separate legal issue, and does not necessarily inevitably result from simply using the product. What is called "second hand smoke" does result from the simple use of the tobacco product.
The restrictions on tobacco advertising by the Federal government date from the 1971 law. This law has been upheld, and prohibits tobacco advertising on radio and television, and since 2003, tobacco advertising in the editions of specified magazines (agreed to in concert with "big tobacco") which are likely to appear in school libraries has been prohibited. In part, the argument stems from an application of the fairness doctrine, the FCC having ruled before the 1971 law that television programs which discuss the dangers of tobacco use did not balance the advertising of tobacco in broadcast media.
Any newly formed tobacco company would be subject to those advertising restrictions, as are existing tobacco companies. After the 1998 agreement between big tobacco and the states' attorneys general, state legislatures attempted to impose further restrictions on tobacco advertising, and that was what lead to the Lorillard v. Reilly
case reviewed by the Supremes in 2001. Any newly formed tobacco company would be offered the same protections (yes, much of the decision protected tobacco companies from certain restrictions attempted by state legislation) as any existing tobacco company, and they would also be bound by any state legislation which has not been thrown out by the courts. Such a new company would have the same opportunity to advertise on bill boards, to participate in promotional marketing which can be shown not to target minors, and to advertise in magazines not destined for school libraries, just as is the case for existing tobacco companies. Similar restrictions, by the way, were once placed on the advertising of hard liquor on television and courtside at NBA games--but those were also voluntarily consented to by distillers, and since that time, an attempt to make such a ban law has failed, and the distillers have decided that they don't need to adhere to the voluntary ban.
I don't think you analogies hold up, even as revised, and you are quite incorrect that a newly-formed tobacco company could not advertise--they simply could not advertise in media and in ways that are prohibited to all tobacco companies. In that respect, the playing field is level.