ABSTRACT
Several cities, but only two U.S states, have passed a law banning the sales of flavored tobacco products. It has been suggested that framing tobacco control policy solely in terms of the youth could send the erroneous message that tobacco use is an acceptable behavior for adults. This study was intended to compare the framing of policy between California's Senate Bill (SB) 38 and 793. Seven audio files of hearings on SB-38 (N = 2) and SB-793 (N = 5), held between March 2019 and August 2020, were transcribed and coded for youth issues and the unprecedented events of 2020 that shaped society's views of health and racial/social justice. The Framework Method was used for organizing and analyzing content of the legislative hearings. Many of the same arguments pertaining to youth were presented in hearings on the two bills. The one notable difference was legislators' sense of obligation to younger constituents, which was expressed in hearings on SB-793, but not SB-38. The hearings on SB-793 also differed with respect to greater discussion about the relevance of a tobacco flavor ban to society as a whole. These discussions revolved around the COVID-19 pandemic and potential impact of a ban on communities of color. Discussions on SB-793 about the larger societal impact of flavored tobacco may be a more effective strategy than focusing exclusively on the youth. Thus, legislators from other U.S. states who are contemplating a statewide ban should consider reframing the issue according to California's SB-793.