Each production, distribution and consumption are always on going. The categories indeed are useful and meaningful but in reality the three activities are deeply intertwined.
He who has control of one has control over all. Imagine two possibilities: first, what is produced, distributed and consumed is determined by voluntary contract. Control is localized, decentralized and rooted in intimate knowledge of mutual beneficiality. The mutual beneficiality comes from both men asserting, freely, “yes” to the trade. Second, what is produced, distributed and consumed is determined by some third party who requires that the two engaged in the trade do what he says and not what they want. How could this be better?
The cartel controls production (say with oil). This ends up controlling distribution and consumption given the impact of that control.
Restrictions on consumption (say with drugs) end up controlling distribution and production. Or one could restrict distribution by licenese (the paper on the wall that says he may) or prescription (the paper in the hand that says he ma). This obviously effects both production and consumption.
Control of distribution (welfare, price controls) certainly effect both production and consumption. They increase the consumption of some and decrease the consumption of others. They certainly decrease what is available for production for some and increase it for others.
Who are “these” beyond the two who wish to produce and trade who think they know better than “those”? What are their virtues? How do “these” know better than “those” about what “those” should do? In what does their expertise lie?