503, 503 (Iowa 1999). It is upon this language that the Government now seizes, extrapolating that “a dealer cannot violate the tax stamp law without committing the crime of illegally possessing a drug with intent to distribute.” However, Gallup did not suggest that every violation of § 453B necessarily entails the commission of a distribution-related offense. Rather, the court held that where, as in Gallup, the defendant violated § 453B by distributing a taxable substance without a drug tax stamp, the underlying act of delivery was a lesser included offense of the tax stamp violation. Id. Indeed, the court expressly acknowledged that a defendant can violate § 453B in a variety of contexts without an intent to distribute, pointing to State v. Lange, 495 N.W.2d 105, 107 (Iowa 1992) (<HOLDING>), and, more importantly, to Franzen, 495 N.W.2d
holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense holding that manufacture of the specified quantity of a controlled substance is a lesser included offense of failing to affix a drug tax stamp 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 recognizing that a conviction under  841a1 requires knowledge that the substance was a controlled substance but rejecting the argument that knowledge of the exact drug type or quantity is an element of the offense holding that an offense is factually lesser included if the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense