I think that's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't account for the results we see in places that have tried decriminalization and harm reduction approaches.
I think part of the issue is that to certain people, that feels like the kind response. Give addicts a place to shoot up. Give them safe drugs. Understand that they commit petty crime due to addiction and it's not really their fault. Make sure we have drugs like Narcan in public places like libraries.
And sometimes that does work out for some individuals, you get people saved from overdose. And that is presented as people "saved" by harm reduction strategies.
But it ignores the second order affects on the community, and also on the way people who are addicts, or at risk of becoming addicts, see their own addiction, and the effects of that.
There was a prominent safe supply activist in Canada not long ago who made it his mission to supply safe drugs to addicts. He does of an overdose himself. The problem is, addiction will kill large numbers of people eventually, it's almost a kind of slow suicide, and making it appear safer tends to obscure that fact.
Addicts are great at hiding from reality, it's when it hits them in the guts that they can sometimes make a real change.
Plus - it does affect others. I used to live in a neighborhood where an injection site went in. It absolutely affected people there, who were themselves mainly low income people without a lot of political voice.