Even as to § 21-5706(b), moreover, Rincon's cited authorities have concluded that combining marijuana and THC in a single count impermissibly joins two separate offenses. State v. Evans, 414 P.3d 1239, at *3 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision); State v. Delarosa, 48 Kan. App.2d 253, 288 P.3d 858, 862 (2012) (Green, J., dissenting).

That test is commonly used in criminal cases to identify marijuana. See, e.g., State v. Conlin, 2014 WL 1272118, at *6 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2014); State v. Delarosa, 288 P.3d 858, 860 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012); United States v. Perez, 2012 WL 243232, at *3 (W.D. La. Jan. 25, 2012); State v. Hatton, 2010 WL 4409576, at *2-*3 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2010) (explaining reliability of Duquenois-Levine test in conjunction with microscopic analysis to distinguish marijuana from hashish); Manzano v. Clay, 2010 WL 3000185, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2010); People v. Skidmore, 2008 WL 2514193, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. June 24, 2008). Therefore, Apicelli's challenge to the expert opinion testimony at trial does not raise a substantial issue of law or fact.