No, you can only be a scoundrel. The law says so.

From Indiana:

Chapter 10. Liquor Dealers' Permits
IC 7.1-3-10-5
Sec. 5. A package liquor store's exclusive business shall be the selling of the following commodities only:
(1) Liquor in its original package.
(2) Beer in permissible containers, if the permittee has the proper permit.
(3) Wine in its original package.
(4) Bar supplies used in the preparation for consumption of alcoholic beverages and in their consumption.
(5) Tobacco products.
(6) Uncooled and uniced charged water, carbonated soda, ginger ale, mineral water, grenadine, and flavoring extracts.
(7) Printed materials.
(8) Lottery tickets as provided in IC 4-30-9.
(9) Cooled or uncooled nonalcoholic malt beverages.
(10) Flavored malt beverage in its original package.


The way I see it, this law is kind of ridiculous.  How is it that a liquor store can't branch out and advertise to it younger consumers?  Or maybe, a liquor store owner was trying to go clean, so he was phasing out his alcoholic beverages and selling more and more soft drinks and coloring books.  The other general stores and liquor stores noticed that this integrating innovator's profit was increase many-fold and decided that he shouldn't be allowed to make that much money.  Once they discovered that the source of his great wealth was the fact that he would lure kids in with his "child-themed" novelties while at the same time retaining his more mature products, they decided that this kind of double-dipping should be outlawed, and that such institutions should exist in complete separation from one another.  Therefore, the integrator's "taxable" income drastically decreased, and order was restored.  (However, he still sold his child novelties on the down-low.)

Thou shalt not spin on the Sabbath.

This wacko law comes out of the great state of Idaho:

"Riding a merry-go-round on Sunday's is considered a crime."

Now I can actually imagine a plausible reason that this law was crafted.  So, imagine with me, that there is an ultra-conservative Orthodox Jew who settles in the great city of Boise with his family and 600 of his closest kinsmen/friends.  After twenty years of living there, he discovers that the ten kids that he has birthed in the land of plenty have been bypassing the Sabbath limits on them by doing their melakha on a merry-go-round.  Since they are spinning in perfect revolutions, they have a 0 displacement, means they haven't gone anywhere or done anything, technically.  Here's the good Hebrew's reactions:
 Good Hebrew:  Now before you chayas start looking at me like I'm some kind of alter cocker, I suggest you listen to me.  I've been shvitzing like a shtupping shvantz trying to make sure that my little angels follow the rules.  And how do you repay me?  You neophytes gather up your chutzpah and disobey me!  Well, you know what I've done?  I was at the governer's house for his boy's bar mitzvah, shmoozing with him and talking about things that we think should change around here.  I happened to mention to that shmegegge that my kids had been bypassing their Sabbath rules on  the merry-go-round, trying to outsmart me.  I suggested he make merry-go-round illegal on the Sabbath, and what do you know?  It happened!  Here's a copy of the actual bill that was signed!  *presents bill*  Now there's nowhere you can go gavalting off about how this is unfair.  You little rodents get what you deserve.  Now go in the house and ess your kosher pot roast.

**Yiddish words are in italics

Needless to say, his children soon lost interest in merry-go-round and resorted to marijuana.

I wonder what the punishment for this law was?  "You are not allowed to make more than a 179.9˚ turn for 48 hours."

Taking a bite out of crime?

"Biting someone with your natural teeth is 'simple assault,' while biting someone with your false teeth is 'aggravated assault'."

I decided that my first blog should be about a law from my home state:  Louisiana.  Now if you're wondering about why I chose this law, let me tell you, it was pretty evident.  Think about it:  what must have been going on for this kind of law to be deemed necessary?

Lawyer:  Now, remind the court of what you say you saw the defendent doing to Mr. Boudreaux.
Witness:  Well, he stopped Mr. Boudreaux on the road, told him "Give me all your money", and began biting him sensely.  When Mr. Boudreaux tried to tell him he had no money, the defendent removed Mr. Boudreaux's teeth, placed them in his mouth, and began biting Mr. Boudreaux's arm with his very own teeth.
Lawyer:  Thank you; no further questions.  I now call the defendant, Mr. Cul de Sac, to the stand.  Mr. Cul de Sac, is it true that you removed this man's dentures and began biting him with them after he refused to give you his money?
Mr. Cul de Sac:  Yes, but in my defense, I wouldn't have taken his teeth if he hadn't started biting me back.

I imagine that it was a situation similar to that which prompted the creation of such a ridiculous law.  That's the aim of my blog:  to present the hypothetical (or otherwise true) situations that could have caused such laws to be created.  Not all of them will be in this format, but they will all (hopefully) make you laugh.