There might be.
There we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's self-evident that in the current climate, the withholding of a "moral nod" means little overall ... and particularly little to IV drug addicts.
As an analogy, I don't think people either ought to be banned from drinking themselves to death or encouraged by governments to do it.
Which brings us back to my point: needle exchanges are "encouragement" only if there are a significant number of people who would be deterred from IV drug use by the withholding of a "moral nod" or the lack of clean needles - although they are not deterred by disease, addiction, and death.
At some point you do have to let those bent on going to hell, do it by themselves.
If government needle exchanges can't be shown to save more taxpayer money on 'free' health care than they cost (directly or indirectly) then they shouldn't exist. Since clean needles are much cheaper than hospital stays, I think it's very plausible that they are money-savers. (Whereas - to anticipate a counterargument - the War on Drugs is clearly not a money-saver.)
the government facilities... would they allow any pamphlets about Jesus to be there? In one last gasp measure to bring salvation to the picture?
Excellent point. It would be far better if government simply permitted private entities to conduct needle exchanges.
At the least, don’t dragoon me, through my representatives, at greasing someone’s skids to hell. Let them find their own grease. There is no “agree to disagree” here — I will actively fight that.