Should a mistake of law only lead to conviction for minor offenses with small punishment $($like strict liability$)?$

Mistake of law should not be the only factor for conviction for minor offenses. One specific example that jumps out to this is$$United States v$.$ Ansaldi, $372$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d $118(2$d Cir. $2004),$ where the defendant illegally distributed a controlled substance. There was no mistake in law that they thought they could do so legally. Mistake of law in that case did not lessen the crime committed, however under a specific verbiage of a statute for tax evasion, the defendant claims not to know they were distributing a controlled substance, where the statute required that they knowingly or intentionally evaded taxes through this act. In this case, mistake of law protected the defendant from charges on tax evasion, but not the distribution of a controlled substance. I would not consider this a minor offense given the impact drugs has played in our society.

I find myself leaning towards the culpability and the severity of the act, rather than what the defendant may or may not have known about the laws that prohibit such acts, regardless of a minor or major crime. Reasonableness can be too subjective to the court reviewing the case. This would be completely dependent on the beliefs of the court on what is seen as reasonable or not, as far as mistake of law is concerned. That being said, punishment may take in consideration the reasonableness and mistake of law, given that an offender has the right to appeal for another opinion.

WHAT DO YOU AGREE WITH MY REPLY TO THE QUESTION?