These laws weren't "made" specifically, as such. I mea, the state legislature didn't get together and say, "hey, let's pass an enactment banning people from giving alcohol to fish!".

Rather, these sorts of things are common law decisions - a judge decides a court case on a particular matter, and the "rule" s/he makes applies to those particular facts.

For example, in Donghue v Stevenson, the case in my profile, it was held that ginger-beer manufacturers have a duty to make sure that dead snails don't wind up in their bottles, even if the ginger beer is ultimately drunk by someone other than the person who bought it - i.e. someone with no contracual relationship to the company.

However, the actual <i>ratio decidendi</i>, or rule of law, is that manufacturers owe a duty of care to those who ultimately make use of their product.

Every decision would seem weird if you just looked at it in light of its material facts.

- It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.
The guy would've been charged with dangerous driving, or something similar, after being caught wearing a blindfold behind the wheel. The prosecution was able to prove, in court, that such an act constitutes "dangerous driving" under the law, so he was prosecuted.
It is illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church.
Probably a "public nuisance" decision or something, from the old days. Decisions like that are less likely to be followed in this day and age, but until a judge has occasion to overrule or ignore them, they technically remain "the law".