Is there a mandatory minimum for manufacturing drug abuse, with the intent to distribute?

I'm not normally one to go down the rabbit hole of reducing things I don't like to social constructs. It often misses the point. For example, people who argue that gender is a social construct are willfully blind to the fact that there really are massive, inborn differences between the sexes, many of which have been specially selected by evolution as beneficial survival tools.

Sometimes, however, it is true. I have seen it argued that the modern teenager is a social construct; it seems plainly obvious to me that our modern concept of the teenager could not exist without mandatory schooling, the automobile, and a youth-obsessed popular culture which says that teens are better off creating their own society than becoming junior members of adult society.

Another legitimate example of a social construct is the definition of drug abuse that Dr. Nancy Caroline gives in her magnum opus, Emergency Care in the Streets, which is one of several textbooks for the Paramedic class that I will be starting shortly. The definition is given as "any use of drugs that causes physical, psychological, economic, legal, or social harm to the user or others affected by the user's behavior" (6th ed., p. G.12). My problem is not with the "social" clause, as you might have thought from the introduction, but with the "legal" clause.

The way that definition is structured, we can call any person who runs afoul of the law by use of drugs an abuser, regardless of the circumstances. The 20-year-old National Merit Scholar and ROTC cadet who safely enjoys a rousing game of beer pong with his fraternity brothers, the chemotherapy patient who needs to smoke marijuana to have some semblance of an appetite, and the grandmother who bought a little too much cold medicine are all made drug abusers out of thin air if they're busted. Justitia is supposed to be blind, not deaf and stupid.

When we use the law to construct character flaws for upstanding citizens like this, the law starts to mirror Penn Jillette's portrait of pointless Victorian-type manners: "random rules to sniff by ... don't really have any purpose at all, other than to control you and make [manners consultants] richer." Substitute "random rules to sniff by" with "random rules on what you can't sniff (or drink, smoke, etc.)," and "make manners consultants richer" with "keep politicians and bureaucrats employed," consider how miserably we've failed at winning the "War on Drugs," and you begin to see what I mean.

This leads to several different problems on top of making life unnecessarily difficult for the accused. First, it burdens the legal system at the expense of taxpayers. Second, it breeds habituation to not thinking critically among people when they buy into the propaganda that necessarily comes with laws that make no sense; we don't need "just say no" campaigns for murder, arson, rape, theft, or (generally) fraud because is plainly obvious why these are undesirable, and the vast majority of people understand that. Third, it creates a general distrust for rule of law, cracking one of the foundation-stones of Western civilization.

So, I propose a mandatory minimum for lawmakers who create these asinine laws: the loudest and most virulent disrespect we can muster. And we can always look to our masters for comic relief.