Currently driving functions as a kind of risk tolerance anchor. "Sure, it's dangerous, but no more so than commuting."

If the campaign to eliminate driving from most people's lives is successful (whether through autonomous vehicles or public transit), I expect activists will move on to the next most dangerous activity. Something will always be the leading cause of preventable injury/death and certain people will always be enthusiastic about banning whatever it is.

I definitely agree that in practice it basically works this way. Though I'd expand on it by saying that driving functions as a risk-tolerance + prevalence + utility anchor, as all three of those variables factor into whether society will attempt to limit something.

I think involving prevalence in the equation is ethically inconsistent. A society that bans drugs on the grounds that they incur a medical cost and provide limited utility should clearly ban base jumping as well.

Policymaking and enforcement resources are limited; it might make sense to triage according to absolute harm.

This logic came up a lot in discussions of a soda tax. In a world of government mandated (if not provided) healthcare, one argument in favor of the tax is the government has a right to your health and can therefore discourage or outright forbid unhealthy behaviors.

If you go climbing or paragliding you probably have a good insurance coverage. search and rescue is usually not covered by taxpayers.

Insurance coverage covering drug use in a world where it is legal seems like it would clearly exist and many would take advantage of it. And I don't see why climbers would be any more or less likely to be covered than recreational drug users. Even if there was a statistical difference, that's a practical concern not an ethical one.

Search and rescue is just one element of saving somebody who has hurt themselves climbing or base jumping. If I understand the policy GP described correctly, if the participant were poor enough, their physical therapy might be covered. Certainly surgery would be.

Differences between how we treat adrenaline junkies and drug users today are really just details. The broader moral question remains: Does a society that has committed to providing medical assistance to those who cannot afford it not tend towards limiting behaviors that tend to cause unusually high medical bills?

Who is limiting my right to go ice climbing or paragliding? There's no government ban on those activities?

The previous comment was hypothetical. Allow me to explain:

These activities are hazardous. In a scenario where the government manages health hazards as a consequence of managing health, government regulation of ice climbing or paragliding is logical.

Again, this was hypothetical, not extant.

Here's the parallel I'm attempting to draw:

Society must pay for drug rehabilitation -> society should consider banning drugs.

Society must pay for medical bills -> society should consider limiting behaviors that have a high probability of incurring medical expenses.

Out of interest (and personal ignorance), is is possible to lawfully do those things without someone causing you to be insured?