Israel: High Pressure Planning (with Benjamin Akzin). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1966.
Public Policymaking Reexamined. San Francisco: Chandler, 1968 (reissued with new introduction by Transaction Books, 1983).
Ventures in Policy Sciences. New York: Elsevier, 1971.
Design for Policy Sciences. New York: Elsevier, 1971.
Crazy States: A Counterconventional Strategic Issue. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1971 (reissued with new introduction by Kraus Reprints, 1980).
Improvement of Policy Making in Israel. Haifa: Neaman Institute, 1982.
Policymaking under Adversity. New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1986 (paperback 1988).
The Capacity to Govern: A Report to the Club of Rome, in publication in main languages.In Progress
The Superior Ruler (a mentoring book for top level governmental and corporate decisionmakers).
Remaking the World. Memorials to a Global Potentate (analysis of critical global issues and policy recommendations).
Policy Gambling (a theoretical treatment of policymaking as fuzzy gambling with history).DRUG TESTING. Those formal organizational programs for determining whether job applicants and/or employees are users of either legalized or illegal drugs. Testing employees for possible drug use is a common practice by many private and public sector employers, as well as one that remains frustrating and emotionally charged for all concerned. Drugs include both the legalized variety, such as alcohol and prescription medicines and illegal controlled substances: marijuana, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, hallucinogens, and countless other addictive substances. Testing commonly involves securing a sample of an individual's body fluids, such as blood, saliva, or urine, for purposes of determining through chemical analysis whether the drug itself (in the case of alcohol) or a metabolite (residue) is present at a level unacceptable to the employer.The controversy surrounding drug testing arises when an individual's right to privacy regarding personal drug use comes in conflict with an employer's need to ensure an efficiently and safely run organization. Potential drug testing for either legalized or illegal drugs requires that an employer respond to four primary questions when developing a drug testing program:
|•||What drugs are the targets in testing?|
|•||Why is drug testing important to do?|
|•||How can one be certain the test is valid?|
|•||What are the options once drugs are found?|
The aforementioned issues must be addressed whenever an employer intends to require drug testing for job applicants and/or current employees. In addition, employers may implement drug testing for employees in cases of suspected impairment in the workplace or randomly for all or designated groups of employees.
Private sector employers are relatively unrestricted in their ability to develop intrusive drug testing policies and procedures for employees. However, such is not the case with public sector or governmental employers. In fact, government as a regulator of drug use among the citizenry may be in sharp divergence with government in its role as employer.
In the United States, substance abuse testing in the governmental workplace has been a deep concern since President Reagan's Executive order 12564 ( 1986) drew national attention to the issue. The executive order allowed drug testing of federal employees even though no substantiated proof of widespread drug abuse had been found among federal workers. In 1988, the Drug-Free Workplace Act required federal contractors to establish drug-free workplace awareness programs as well as notify the government of any employee convicted of drug use in the workplace. Subsequently, federal agencies issued a variety of regulations mandating the random testing of contract workers in positions related to public safety or national security. State and local governments, although not required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act, promulgated regulations and policies establishing not only an awareness program, but substance abuse testing of employees, which included random drug testing.
Government as policymaker further intruded into the arena of employee drug testing with passage of the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, which