It inadvertently banned potlucks at churches and other nonprofits. Why, Indiana can’t have those dangerous church ladies making gooseberry pies or corn pudding or potato salad without state approval, even if grieving families openly appreciated having a nice meal after funerals.

Oops.

Back to HB 1057.

Like other alcohol laws, it clearly will have some bizarre inconsistencies. Under current liquor laws, you can’t buy carry-out non-alcoholic beer on Sundays, even though you can’t get even a minor buzz off it, yet you can buy all 50-proof Nyquil you want. Or 28.6-proof Scope. Or 70-proof vanilla extract. (For comparison, domestic beers are 10-14 proof and domestic wines are 24-28 proof.)

I don’t want blue laws to ban such purchases. But this shows how current laws don’t make sense.

Surely harmless non-alcoholic beer will be part of this bill because, jeepers, a police officer looking from a distance can’t tell a green O’Doul’s bottle from a green Becks bottle.

Why don’t they go all way with law? If you have an open Scope bottle, you’re toast. Better keep that vanilla in trunk. And no tolerance for a cup of orange juice, either. If orange juice in your refrigerator was opened three days ago, it has more alcohol than a bottle of O’Doul’s.

This bill would punish recyclers, who reduce load on our landfills, pick up litter and support nonprofits, such as Muncie animal shelter.

Collectors hauling their goods to flea market could face fines for cans and bottles that have been empty so long that drinker has been dead for decades. Caterers (or parents of bride and groom) would not be able to choose where in van to put half-used bottles left from a wedding reception.

The problem isn’t with alcohol containers.

The first problem is unsafe drivers. (Ironically, drunk drivers will drive past police officers ticketing sober drivers.)

The other problem is with legislators who pass laws without thinking about consequences. Their judgment is clearly impaired. They’re ones who deserve a citation.

At this point SAMHSA changed its story and said that it was SAMHSA policy to use words, "sexual orientation" when referring to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender population. Apparently, it has failed officials at SAMHSA that all people have a sexual orientation whether that is a hetero, homo or bisexual orientation.

Perhaps realizing just how much trouble they could be in with groups like ACLU for refusing to use, or let be used, terms gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender story changed one more time. In an article appearing in Join Together Online terminology "sexual orientation" was attributed to a project manager by name of Brenda Bruun.

One thing that has not changed, is refusal by SAMHSA to allow workshop presenters to change title back to include gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. For now workshop will be a workshop on vulnerable populations. And, at least in eyes of SAMHSA, all Americans will be equally gay.