Interesting you mention Aldous Huxley – he was very interested in the use of drugs or narcotics, and his views on drugs was certainly far more nuanced that what you would suggest. See here:

Huxley argues that while the intuitive solution seems to be to enforce complete prohibition of mind-altering substances, this tends to backfire and “create more evils than it cures,” while also admonishing to the diametric opposite of this black-and-white approach, the “complete toleration and unrestricted availability” of drugs.

I would agree with this: that complete prohibition backfires, and recognising that doesn’t automatically mean that one is on the other extreme of believing in the unrestricted availability of drugs.

I take your point about the need to try even if it is impossible to achieve a 100% drug free society. But that is what countries that pursue harm reduction policies are doing – they are trying to deal with the problem in a holistic way that does not swing between the two extremes that Huxley was concerned with. The importance of recognising that we cannot be 100% drug free comes when we cling to the flawed belief that if we could only execute all the traffickers – as was suggested in comment I was responding to – we would be eradicating drugs completely. That just leads us to hold on to problematic, brutal policies that don’t actually work.