That's like saying "we're not banning drugs, we're just banning drugs unless you're a surgeon that needs drugs to sedate a patient". Effectively, that's banning what they're doing, if they wanted to open a taxi company that'd be completely different business.
There is a difference between banning and regulating. If a certain culture finds that certain businesses better be regulated for whatever reason (and your exsmple is actually a good one) that's OK and must be followed.
Take for instance the FDA that heavily heavily regulates the US market. I could argue that I as a customer should be able to choose myself what I eat and drink, yet that's not the case.
You may call that cartel, mafia, whatever you want but it's how administrations work..
It's not a blanket ban – UberBlack can still operate, because UberBlack follows the regulations. UberPool isn't banned either.
It's only UberPop, which tries to operate without a license as a for-profit service.
And imagine a UberPop driver hits you with his car – he would be not insured (regular insurance doesn't cover commercial activity), so you would have to pay your own medical treatment (getting broken bones together, etc) on your own, because the driver had no license.
It sounds more like "we're not banning drugs, just that if you make a business that involves sedating people then you need to follow certain rules. If you do surgery below cost then you are free to use the drugs."
