Perhaps we don't actually need to make a version of SPIT for those who can't drink. I mean, nobody is being forced to actually drink it.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

The whole idea of specifying a recipe for a regional drink is unnecessary. However, we do it because it signals what the South Pacific is: a fun-loving, lampshade-wearing democracy. If we as a region feel it necessary to define a regional drink, then it should not be to the complete exclusion of those do not drink alcohol. The point of this proposal, as I understand it, is not to create a workable alternate recipe (which honestly does not and has never mattered), but to send a signal that choosing not to consume alcohol is perfectly honourable and entirely accepted by the community. Is this proposal unnecessary? Yes, but so is defining the ingredients for a drink which is virtually consumed.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

The whole idea of specifying a recipe for a regional drink is unnecessary. However, we do it because it signals what the South Pacific is: a fun-loving, lampshade-wearing democracy. If we as a region feel it necessary to define a regional drink, then it should not be to the complete exclusion of those do not drink alcohol. The point of this proposal, as I understand it, is not to create a workable alternate recipe (which honestly does not and has never mattered), but to send a signal that choosing not to consume alcohol is perfectly honourable and entirely accepted by the community. Is this proposal unnecessary? Yes, but so is defining the ingredients for a drink which is virtually consumed.

Sure — but we're attempting to redefine an entire drink ... based on things that don't exist.

The easiest thing would be to take the recipe out of SPIT and let everyone make it as they see fit (i.e. just say its the official drink). I believe when this was originally passed, that was how it was written.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I'd be happy with that option. Either works for me. On an interesting note, after your post I did a quick Google and found that there are products which are direct non-alcoholic substitutes for specific beverages (example). On that basis, the current proposal is not redefining an entire drink based on things which don't exist. Regardless, I don't care how the aims of this proposal are achieved: tossing the recipe, permitting substitution, or even just specifying that a Virgin SPIT exists.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

I'd be happy with that option. Either works for me. On an interesting note, after your post I did a quick Google and found that there are products which are direct non-alcoholic substitutes for specific beverages (example). On that basis, the current proposal is not redefining an entire drink based on things which don't exist. Regardless, I don't care how the aims of this proposal are achieved: tossing the recipe, permitting substitution, or even just specifying that a Virgin SPIT exists.

Yeah -- we can find lots of "substitutions" on the internet; that doesn't mean they are common or practical. Anyhow, speaking as a long-time server, I would not encourage anyone to ask a bartender to make you a virgin Long Island Iced Tea.

Feel free to redefine the proposal as you see fit.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply