The meaning is obvious in both cases, as the intention is clear and common sense. As pointed out, any unintended interpretation can be reduced by separating the rule from the incident and the condtions and to mention, whether all or only one of the conditions must be met, for the rule to apply.
From a logical, i.e mathematical view there might be space for interpretation. But as the production and the distribution may not happen simultaneously with respect to the entity in mind, the assumption of an AND relation between those two steps does not make sense. The only possible assumption is, that the process as a whole is meant, when the term 'manufacturing and distribution' is used.
The proposed way to point out the rules (i.e. by using a list) lets people better understand and is much easier to proof being unambiguous. But in the context you asked, the text is perfectly clear and far away from being misleading. When properly transscripted in a logical formula, one would have to set braces, where the speach allows us to use ellipses. In the case in question the result is then the same. Not to allow in general does necessarily also disallows every part it consists of.
It might have a different meaning when using AND instead of OR, but not necessarily. It is legal to plan a murder of ones own imaginary friend, as well as trying to let the plan come true. Whether to plan, nor to ask someone to do it nor to try it without any help is allowed, because the intention and the act itself is illegal, as soon as the target is real. In the case mentioned the AND reffers to the shared context (i.e. drug), meanwhile other independent conditions are separated by interpunction.
There are a lot of ambiguous or contradictive cases, but your text is not among them, and a perfect way does not exist. Even the equation x = x would find people, that are willing to convince others to be wrong when thinking the equation evaluates to true. The relevant measure should be, whether or not the text transmitts, what it was meant to share. Formal conformity is of little to zero value, when the content is evaluated by humans. Humans are smarter and much more flexible than machines, but not even close to more or less, when it comes to consistency.
(Usually everybody knows, what he or she should do and what not, not everone follows the rules, some of them can be convicted, most of them try to explain, that one might think, that one escapes the punishment due to formal gaps in normative texts. - humans are better humans, machines are more precise and consistent. If we address humans, we should care to be understood. If we address machines, we should look at the breakpoints along the borders of the rooms of different decisions. Asking a human, what a machine might decide, is as useful as the answer of a lawyer, when asked, what the jury or the judge will do. The jury and the judge will be influenced by their nature, while machines will discard all the facts, that have not yet been transscripted in machine language. When programming, you have no other choice as being precise. When addressing humans, you should try to let others understand. Omitting inconsistencies does not mean, that any third party understands, while formal contradictions may be resolved, when the reader may recognize the intention and if he is willing to confirm with the aim, when the wording does not allow to resolve a contradiction. Right and wrong are dimensions, that are as useful here not less and not more than colors in math, politics or economics. The only relevant target is to be understood. Any other measure is used by people, that are not able to explain things, while being unable to accept that particular deficit.)
In a case such as the one pointed out, it is most often easier to describe the situation, that is being tried to achieve or to maintain, rather than to mention all activities that are forbidden, because of their contradicting consequences. It's easy to say what the target is, but it is difficult to impossible to forbid everything, that works against the intention. Formal correct is the right answer to the wrong question, because it is always incomplete, contradicting over time and focused on punishment instead of the effect.
If the question is, what to do to let the intention be clear, don't change the wording. If you intend to win on court, add some rules, to prevent individuals from using whatever is not yet mentioned, but meant, when setting the rules. Ask people, what they think the meaning is. If they read, what you intended, then perfect. Otherwise change it, no matter of what an experts tells you. Besude courts and quiz arenas it does not matter to proof to be right, but to tell, what you want to say.