quesera

Yesterday? So all this candy is for me now?? :)

You're right, I definitely misread that part. Apologies!

FWIW, OP's framing is still misleading though. Regulators do not test retail product as part of some kind of surreptitious sting operation, which they then do not bother to follow through on.

The Department of Public Health responds to complaints, and patterns of medical reporting to find a cause and determine whether there are legal or health code violations. The sale of 5-MeO-DMT (or psilocybin or psilocin) would be shut down, and charges filed.

The sale of 4-Aco-DMT would be legal, so instead they issue warnings that amount to "That thing you bought that was sold with claims of similarity to an illegal drug does actually have physiological effects even though it's legal, so be careful.". Which is fair enough!

That would make much more sense. :)

Legal, unregulated, and synthetic. But close enough for the moderately-savvy customer.

Well put.

We're all blind, and that might be an elephant.

You are responding with affirmative condescension to a claim that is almost certainly not true.

Apparently it feeds your biases though. Check your filters, perhaps?

I'd be astonished if any of what you wrote above is true.

State regulators do not "surreptitiously test" Schedule I drugs on the public via retail sale. That's just inane.

There is no legal classification for "magic mushrooms", but I am willing to bet that the products for sale are legal, and do not contain psilocybin or psilocin.

They're just some unregulated compound that might have come from mushrooms, but is more likely made in a lab, and may or may not be mildly psychoactive.

And they'll probably add some caffeine and theobromine, which boardwalk denizens will feel the effects of and not know precisely how to categorize.

(Vouched so I could reply.)

Why would that be a bad thing? What happens under badguy.com is badguy.com's business, is it not?

Is it any different than setting cookie scoping rules?

I'm sure OP is a good person.

But if they were not, and had ill intentions, they might see $500 as a very inexpensive way to purchase a working exploit to use against others.

That was Dole, according to the Hawaiians I know.

I get it, and I know it, but I still think it's more funny than good.

(but I did not downvote, I suspect that's other peoples' opinions about your optimism :)

I'm not normally one to quibble about software naming collisions, and I have literally never run MS Windows on any hardware ever in my life.

But this collision seems inauspicious.

Could we just publish (and cache!) TXT records at the appropriate-level domains? E.g.:

  host -t TXT github.io.
  etld_depth=2

Cough and bough would be good additions.