person in the workplace. “Administration” refers to “the direct application of a controlled substance, whether by injection, inhalation, ingestion or any other means.” See ORS 475.005(2). There is no evidence that plaintiff smoked or otherwise consumed marijuana at work. The somewhat closer question is whether, by having evidence of marijuana consumption in his urine, plaintiff “possessed” marijuana in the workplace. No form of the word “possess” is defined in ORS chapter 475 itself. However, we have previously rejected the contention that a person who has evidence of a controlled substance in his or her bloodstream “possesses” that substance for purposes of a prosecution for possession of a controlled substance under ORS 475.992. State v. Daline, 175 Or App 625, 632, 30 P3d 426 (2001) (<HOLDING>). We perceive no reason why the view of the
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 possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense 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 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 because dominion and control are central to possession once a person consumes a controlled substance and the substance enters bodily fluids the person no longer possesses the substance