I think the science speaks for itself. The debate speaks for itself.
Public health advocates for a comprehensive approach to issues: the gathering of evidence on promotion, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, harm reduction, and identifying and addressing any underlying factors or determinants within each and all of these areas.
Individuals, communities, health regions, and governments then choose what to fund and to support. Having been one who's established harm reduction programs, including things like needle exchange, at a time when people viewed it as potentially illegal, I understand that very well.
Public health then works with others across these realms, using what resources and evidence we have to minimize harm to the individuals, to reduce the risk to others, and to increase health and well-being. That's our job. We provide the advice, the best advice we can. Governments and jurisdictions, as appropriate, make their decisions and have their political context in which they make those decisions.