Is possession of cocaine an essential element of transportation?

In the present case appellant does not attempt to argue that his possession of cocaine meets either condition of this test. By definition possession is not an essential element of transportation because the latter offense can be committed without also committing possession. (People v. Rogers, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 134, 95 Cal.Rptr. 601, 486 P.2d 129.) Nor does appellant suggest the language of the information creates a necessarily included offense, since it does not describe the alleged transportation in such a way that if transportation was committed as specified, the possession necessarily was also committed. ³