intent to distribute.” We remain unpersuaded. Indeed, State v. Gallup, 500 N.W.2d 437 (Iowa 1993), upon whose reasoning the Government relies, provides no support for the Government’s construction of the drug tax stamp law. There, the defendant received concurrent sentences arising out of his conviction for two crimes: (1) delivery of a controlled substance, and (2) distribution of a taxable substance without a drug tax stamp. Id. at 439. He appealed, arguing that imposition of both sentences violated the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed that the two convictions involved the same offense, because, in that ease, “[t]he drug tax stamp offense cannot be committed without committing the delivery offense.” Id. at 442; see also State v. Stage, 596 t 717 (<HOLDING>). Because we cannot agree with the Government’s
holding that simple possession is not a lesserincluded offense of distribution of a controlled 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 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 holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense holding that possession of the specified quantity of a controlled substance is a lesser included offense of failing to affix a drug tax stamp