As a society we have limited resources for healthcare. So it's worth considering whether we might achieve better net results by shifting some resources from lung cancer treatment to smoking cessation programs.
> Overall, 10 percent to 15 percent of lung cancers occur in non-smokers. (Another 50 percent occur in former smokers.)
> Two-thirds of the non-smokers who get lung cancer are women, and 20 percent of lung cancers in women occur in individuals who have never smoked. This percentage is significantly higher in Asian women.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/lung-cancer-in-non-smokers-22...
As for the smokers, they generally pay higher health insurance premiums so at least they're contributing their share of resources.
From a practical perspective, setting aside issues like blame and responsibility and the dollar value of one life vs another, studying all types of disease increases our knowledge of human biology, and our knowledge of disease in general.
Keytruda is one example of a therapy that was developed to treat lung cancer (and melanoma), but now looks like it could be effective against other solid tumors that fit a genetic profile.
This is not to argue against smoking cessation (or more importantly, prevention) programs. Just that there are reasons to pursue lung cancer treatment research that go beyond the lungs entirely.
I hope you aren't suggesting that I should be condemned for the sins of my parents if I should one day get lung cancer.
Also keep in mind that pollution is going to be a large (if not the largest) contributor to lung cancer in the future.
I think it's a hard choice between allowing for personal freedoms and improving society for the better by outlawing dangerous drugs like smoking and alcohol. I think there can be a balance by allowing everyone the same level of access to healthcare but increasing taxes on dangerous recreational drugs to subsidize the healthcare system. You can eat fast food and smoke all you want but it's going to cost you heavily financially.