Illegitimate slippery slope. There's a very big difference between what you're talking about and this. Advertising products towards children which you are legally not allowed to sell to them because of an abundance of empirical evidence leading to the conclusion that such products can have an immediate and detrimental effect to said child and thus legally can't be sold to them. As an extension of that, that segment can't be a target market.
The effect of what you're saying is that we restrict tobacco and alcohol marketing, and as such, all advertising should likewise be restricted because of a select group's perceived risk of lifetime harm stemming from the marketing itself rather than the product. By extension, you could argue that advertising of various medication with side effects, cars with anything more than a capacity of 40hp, extreme sports, any form of credit, and god knows what else should be restricted because of a possibility of detrimental effect on society or the forming of a lifetime of bad habits. Connection is too vague and can be applied to pretty much anything that could possibly be construed as unhealthy in any regard.
Regardless, this isn't even about any possible health issue; this is purely about the marketing, and as it stands under common law, if you can legally sell the product to someone, you can legally target them with your marketing. Now, you could still legislate a restriction, but good luck unless you have dollars behind it and a shit ton of evidence.
