My chemistry background is some lightweight undergrad stuff, so it’s definitely possible that there are constraints that I’m unaware of; but I’m puzzled by the apparent plan here:
Someone dealing with the procurement hassle and legal exposure of schedule II opioids is presumably doing that because they want those effects(presumably either the sedation, if he’s just trying to quiet the neighbors temporarily, or the respiratory depression, if permanently); and in that case it seems counterproductive to use a solvent/carrier that people are describing as smelling worse than nail polish remover.
If, on the other hand, this guy was just trying to make the neighbors miserable or generically sickened to get them to leave that would make something with a really unpleasant smell(but enough volatility that they’ll go nuts trying to nail down the source) a lot more sensible; but then why drag opioids into it when there are variety of hardware store to ubiquitous reagent supply options that would do the job?
Inaccuracies from a story reported at some remove? Something I’m failing to consider? Even criminals with relatively advanced education in the relevant area not always the brightest bulbs in the rocket ship?
