I'm not sure what you mean by "exceedingly," but:

> 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.

Lung cancer is still cancer, and while different types of cancers vary in many ways, they are also similar in many ways. Studies into the detection and treatment of lung cancer can (and have) contributed to the detection and treatment of other types of cancers.

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.

Just to give you a data point. I grew up in a family that smoked in the house. I've never smoked myself.

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.

Please read my comment again. I in no way suggested you be condemned. What I actually suggested is that we do an economic analysis to determine how to deploy our limited healthcare resources in order to maximize net benefits.