My point isn't that they're equivalent (they're not), but that the analysis never stops at "this will save lives, so we should do it". There's always more layers, such as here your very valid analysis of whether people are choosing to participate.
No, but you'd get the point across better by using a less ridiculous example -- that's my point. Nobody's ever going to support a ban on surfing because it's just ludicrous on its face. Ending tobacco and sugar subsidies is something that could get real consideration today.
A better example would be "let's end all farm subsidies for sugar and tobacco." You could arguably include corn here, as well. Go a little further, and you can start talking about national sugar and tobacco taxes. All these measures simply increase the price of sugar and tobacco, which has been proven to reduce consumption, and would certainly have the effect of reducing obesity and cancer.
I find it a lot harder to argue against those things than to say we should ban surfing, boxing, or rafting, because a few people get injured or die every year doing them.