beginning at subdivision 1.1-4-8(2). This means that a twenty-minute waiting period need not be observed, the officer may place a new mouthpiece into the Datamas-ter breath tube, and a new breath sample may be delivered right away in hopes of obtaining a valid result. Under these circumstances, the test subject will have had an initial mouthpiece placed in his mouth less than twenty minutes before the administration of the second test, but that will presumably not invalidate the final result. Therefore, the administrative rules tacitly recognize that a Datamaster mouthpiece is itself not a foreign substance that will invalidate Datamaster results obtained less than twenty minutes later. See also People v. Wilhelm, 346 Ill.App.3d 206, 281 Ill.Dec. 411, 803 N.E.2d 1032, 1035-36 (2004) (<HOLDING>). We further conclude that if a Datamas-ter
holding that where a breathalyzer mouthpiece is replaced following delivery of an insufficient breath sample the mouthpiece is not a foreign substance invalidating subsequent results holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance holding that knowledge that a substance is a controlled substance is an element of  952 holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance