There's a big difference between charlatans touting miracle cures and commercials for FDA-approved drugs, but even the latter are considered by many reasonable people to be harmful and worthy of banning.
You seem to have linked to the wrong document. You linked to the appellant's petition for the Supreme Court to hear the appeal. The actual decision from the Court does not seem to be particularly supportive of anything you are claiming or insinuating. In particular, the Court's decision in that case reaffirmed that "Although commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment, not all regulation of such speech is unconstitutional." Your broad, blanket statement that ads for legal products cannot be restricted without a constitutional amendment is directly contradicted by the Court's rulings.