Except I am not saying it is "hogwash". In this thread I acknowledged the evidence that SIS reduce overdose deaths. What I question is the definition of success as defined as advocates. Saving lives is good but for every life saved how many languish longer in addiction because the SIS enable their addiction or because resources are being spent on SIS instead of expanding detox beds? None of the evidence I have seen addresses these concerns. The reason is most likely because of the bias I noted above. The researchers are keen to report areas of success while they play down the negative consequences.
Please try and explain to us how a SIS "enables" addiction. People who show up at a site are already addicted. They go to the site for some safety to do what they are going to do anyway. And they can get help to battle their addiction as well, so your theory falls apart.