AchenChristopher H.1986. The statistical analysis of quasi-experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 1996. Briefing paper number 5: Drug testing in the workplace. archive.aclu.org/library/pbp5.html. Accessed June 14, 2004.
3.
BaumgartnerFrank R.JonesBryan D.. 1993. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BerryFrances StokesBerryWilliam D.. 1990. State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review84: 395–415.
5.
BerryFrances StokesBerryWilliam D.. 1992. Tax innovation in the states: Capitalizing on political opportunity. American Journal of Political Science36, no. 3: 715–42.
6.
BerryWilliam D.RingquistEvan J.FordingRichard C.HansonRussell L.. 1998. Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states, 1960–93. American Journal of Political Science42, no. 1: 327–48.
7.
BrehmJohn. 1993. The phantom respondents: Opinion surveys and political representation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
8.
BrownRobert D.1995. Party cleavages and welfare effort in the American states. American Political Science Review89, no. 1: 23–33.
9.
CookF. L.TylorT. R.GoetzE. G.GordonM. T.ProtessD.LeffD. R.MolotchH. L.. 1983. Media and agenda-setting: Effects on the public, interest group leaders, policy makers, and policy. Public Opinion Quarterly47: 16–35.
10.
CrowStephen M.FokLillian Y.HartmanSandra J.. 1994. Drug testing in labor arbitration: Does it impact the decision-making process?Journal of Managerial Issues6, no. 3: 297–311.
11.
CyertRichard M.MarchJames C.. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12.
BernardodeMarkA.DeloguNancy N.. 1998. 1998–99 Guide to state and federal drug-testing laws: Legislative and legal requirements in the private sector. Including relevant workers' compensation and unemployment compensation statutes and case law. 7th ed.Washington, DC: Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace.
13.
DubowskiKurt M.TuggleR. Slaton. 1990. Drug-use testing in the workplace: Law and science. Eau Claire, WI: Professional Education Systems, Inc.
14.
EriksonRobertWrightGeraldJr.McIverJohn. 1993. Statehouse democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
FlanneryHarry A.1987. Unilaterally instituted drug screen tests in the unionized private industry: An appropriate response?Labor Law Journal38, no. 12: 756–62.
16.
GilliomJohn. 1994. Surveillance, privacy, and the law: Employee drug testing and the politics of social control. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
17.
GlickHenry R.HaysScott P.. 1991. Innovation and reinvention in state policymaking: Theory and evolution of living will laws. Journal of Politics53, no. 3: 835–50.
18.
GrayVirginia. 1973. Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review67: 1174–85.
19.
GrayVirginiaLoweryDavid. 1999. Interest representation in the states. In American state and local politics: Directions for the 21st century, edited byWeberRonald E.BracePaul. London: Chatham House Publishers.
20.
Haider-MarkelDonald P.MeierKenneth J.. 1996. The politics of gay and lesbian rights: Expanding the scope of conflict. Journal of Politics58, no. 2: 332–49.
21.
HaysScott P.GlickHenry R.. 1997. The role of agenda setting in policy innovation: An event history analysis of living will laws. American Politics Quarterly25: 497–516.
22.
HeckmanJames J.1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica47, no. 2: 153–61.
23.
HillKim QuaileLeighleyJan E.. 1992. The policy consequences of class bias in state electorates. American Journal of Political Science36, no. 2: 351–65.
24.
HirschBarry T.MacphersonDavid A.. 1986–97. Union membership and earnings data book: Compilations from the current population survey. Washington: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
25.
LeRoyMichael H.1991. Discriminating characteristics of union members' attitudes toward drug testing in the workplace. Journal of Labor Research12, no. 4: 453–66.
26.
LieberwitzRisa, 1986. Address, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, November 15, 1986. In Drug testing in the workplace, edited byDeCresceRobert P.LifshitzMark S.MazuraAdrianne C.TilsonJoseph E.. 1989. Chicago: American Society of Clinical Pathologists.
27.
LindblomCharles E.1965. The intelligence of democracy: Decision making through mutual adjustment. New York: Free Press.
28.
LinskyM.1986. Impact: How the press affects federal policymaking. New York: W. W. Norton.
29.
MacdonaldScottWellsSamanthaFryRichard. 1993. The limitations of drug screening in the workplace. International Labour Review132, no. 1: 95–113.
30.
ManiD. A.BurnsL. E.1986. Urinalysis testing and EAPs. In EAP digest (October). Troy, NY: Performance Resource Press, Inc.
31.
McCombsMaxwell E.ShawDonald L.. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly36: 176–84.
32.
MeierKenneth J.1994. The politics of sin: Drugs, alcohol, and public policy. London: M.E. Sharpe.
33.
MintromMichael. 1997. Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science41, no. 3: 738–70.
34.
MooneyChristopher Z.Lee.Mei-Hsien1995. Legislating morality in the American states: The case of pre-Roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science39: 599–627.
35.
MorikawaDennis J.HurtgenPeter J.ConnorTerence G.CostelloJoseph J.. 1987. Implementation of drug and alcohol testing in the unionized workplace. Nova Law Review11, no. 2: 653–68.
36.
RingquistEvan J.1993. Does regulation matter? Evaluating the effects of state air pollution control programs. Journal of Politics55, no. 4: 1022–45.
37.
RingquistEvan J.GarandJames C.. 1999. Policy change in the American states. In American state and local politics: Directions for the 21st century, edited byWeberRonald E.BracePaul. New York: Chatham House.
38.
SigelmanLeeZengLangche. 1999. Analyzing censored and sample-selected data with Tobit and Heckit models. Political Analysis8, no. 2: 167–82.
39.
SimonHerbert. 1957. Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. 2nd ed.New York: Macmillan.
40.
ThomasClive S.HrebenarRonald J.. 1996. Interest groups in the states. In Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis, edited byGrayVirginiaJacobHerbert. 6th ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
41.
TriceHarrison M.SteelePaul D.. 1995. Impairment testing: Issues and convergence with employee assistance programs. The Journal of Drug Issues25, no. 2: 471–503.
42.
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1987–98. Uniform crime reports: County level detailed arrest and offense data, 1987–98 [computer file]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation [producer]; Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].
43.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1987–98a. Annual employment and earnings report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
44.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1987–98b. Monthly labor review. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
45.
WalkerJack L.1969. The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review63: 880–99.
46.
WalshJ. M.TrumbleJ. G.. 1991. The politics of drug testing. In Drug testing: Issues and options, edited byCoombsR. H.WestL. J.. New York: Oxford University Press.
47.
WestLouis JolyonAckermanDeborah L.. 1993. The drug-testing controversy. The Journal of Drug Issues23, no. 4: 579–95.
48.
WhiteHalbert. 1978. A heteroskedasticity consistent covariance matrix and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica46: 817–38.
49.
WindauJanice A.JackTracy A.ToscanoGuy A.. 1998. State and industry fatal occupational injuries, 1992–96. Compensation and Working Conditions (summer): 8–15.