There are way better drinking games than debating prohibition-era liquor laws. Yet for some reason most of the lobbyists and lawmakers working on a booze “cleanup” bill have opted for legislative war instead of beer pong.

The discussion over the last few weeks has resembled a nonsensical drunk stumbling home from the bar, muttering, “No, you’re a liar. Stupid big-box store. Was Walmart part of the deal? APPLEJACK! APPLEJACK!”

Just like our drunk friend, it’s hard to make sense of the recent conversation.

It finally blacked out on Monday after a dramatic vote on a bill intended to “cleanup” alcohol laws passed by the legislature last year. Deadlocked at 17-17, a vote that crossed party lines, Senate President Kevin Grantham, R-Canon City, cast the final “no” vote.

With that, some observers said that a “historic” deal last year that gradually allowed for the sale of full-strength alcohol in grocery stores over 20 years had been eviscerated.

Big-box retailers like Walmart and Target claimed that passage of the bill was critical for them to participate in the liquor sales expansion agreed upon last year. They said it was about a level playing field.

The bill this year would have extended liquor licenses to stores that have a pharmacy on premise that’s licensed to another company. It also would have allowed a liquor-licensed drugstore that applied for a new license before October 2016 to gradually obtain multiple retail licenses.

Walmart’s issue pertained to the licensure date change; Target required the fix on extending licenses to stores with a pharmacy regardless of ownership.

Walmart claims that without the change, it can’t sell liquor, which creates an uneven playing field. Target is still evaluating whether it is prohibited from selling liquor without the legislation.

What ensued in the midst of the legislative process was blame games just shy of Trump accusing Obama of tapping his phones.

A company was formed, Support Your Local Liquor Store, by a well-known lobbyist, who was approached by independent liquor stores like Applejack Wine and Spirits in Wheat Ridge. They wanted another bite of the apple, and asked Support Your Local Liquor Store to represent them. Applejack was critical of the compromise last year.

Independent liquor stores said Walmart never intended on being part of the compromise last year. They said Walmart was totally cool with rolling out sales of full-strength beer.

Walmart and its lobbyists, however, looked at the independent liquor stores like they were drunk, saying the giant retailer absolutely intended on being part of the complete deal last year. Walmart said it even spearheaded the effort.

Somewhere in the mix, Natural Grocers got involved, attempting to amend Senate Bill 143 so that it could sell beer and wine. That amendment failed in committee.

By the time the bill made it to the Senate floor, fingers were pointing everywhere.

The floor debate devolved into a referendum on big-box stores, rather than discussing technical changes. Old wounds that had barely begun to heal were opened, and the same debate from last year over big-box crushing small liquor stores reignited.

After the bill failed, Walmart hinted that it might go to the ballot, which is something small liquor stores have desperately tried to avoid. A cornerstone of the deal last year was avoiding that ballot fight.

If voters approve liquor sales in grocery stores, then nearly overnight supermarkets could start selling booze, which would potentially shutter smaller stores.

But in the end, the compromise last year essentially led to an unwillingness to compromise this year, and so the entire issue is being litigated again.

Which is why we’re telling the liquor lobby: Last call! It’s time to go home.