★ Reviews ★

Let customers speak for us

713 reviews
85%
(609)
5%
(39)
4%
(26)
3%
(20)
3%
(19)
My go to

I have tried hundreds and hundreds of ejuices. I have found others I like but eventually get sick of them. Snake bite however is my go to and have been using it for 2 years now and never get sick of it. Now it is all I buy except for the occasional swaggerific for a treat. Best quality juice I have ever found and the price is awesome

Damn!!!! We love to hear things like this! Thanks for taking the time to review! Keep on Keeping on fam, Much ❤ from all of use a Rasta Vapors!
One of my favorite

Love this ..I only vap max VG the flavor is amazing.

Thank you for your review! Much ♥
Love the juice

I love this juice and i like the new packaging! Thanks guys!

Full flavors

You can taste each one of the flavors. The cotton candy is dead on. And the raspberry complements the cranberry great flavor for someone who likes pizzazz

This is one of my all day vapes as well :) its a hidden little secret on our wild flavor menu! Thank you again for taking the time to review everything you scooped up!
Fruitly fruit where no juice has gone before

Very fruity but not in a over powering jolly rancher kinda way. Its a strong flavor but it doesnt taste cheap and over powering like grape jam monster. This is my favorite when it comes to fruity flavors just the right amount of sweet

Thank you so much for taking the time to review this flavor! We sincerely appreciate it and appreciate having you as part of the famalama! Much love!

Esteemed medical journal bans term 'tobacco products' from vaping studies

Scientists from around the world often publish research studies in a variety of fields on the highly regarded medical journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research (NTR). Last month, its Editor-in-Chief Marcus Munafò made the remarkable but somewhat controversial announcement that the organization will no longer allow publications of studies that refer to vaping technology and e-liquids as tobacco products. The announcement is receiving high praise from advocates within the vaping community who have long refuted use of the term by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a guideline to implement overly harsh regulations that threaten to bankrupt the entire industry by 2022.

Taking a stand in favor of vaping

The move was made public in an opinion piece authored by Munafò and published on the Oxford Academic website on June 20. The article entitled Are e-cigarettes tobacco products suggests that even though the FDA insists of labeling both tobacco-free vaping devices and combustible tobacco products into the same category, the scientific community is smart enough to make clear the discernable differences between the two.

“Our preference is for the term ‘tobacco products’ to be reserved for those products that are made from and contain tobacco (rather than contain constituents such as nicotine extracted from it). The term ‘nicotine-containing products’ is more general, and can be applied to tobacco products but also non-tobacco products such as e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapies. However, even the term nicotine-containing products does not apply to cases where aerosol-producing devices are used with liquids that do not contain nicotine – in this case distinguishing between vaping devices and liquids (which may or may contain nicotine) could be helpful.”

Munafò also seems to take issue with a couple of other terms. For example, he suggests that authors of published vaping studies should avoid calling vaping devices ENDS or Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems. After all, not every vaping device is electronic, and not all e-liquids are infused with nicotine. The rise in popularity of zero-nicotine e-liquids makes the use of the term only more confusing for the general public and can easily be viewed as intentionally misleading.

“Another common description is electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS), but again this is potentially problematic because not all devices are electronic (and again may deliver liquids that do not contain nicotine). A simpler approach would therefore be to refer to ‘cigarettes’, ‘e-cigarettes’ and so on, without reference to broad categories. The exception would be cases where e-cigarettes are being referred to in a specific policy context (e.g., in relation to the FDA). The guiding principle is that the terminology used should be clear, unambiguous, and scientifically appropriate.”

Mr. Munafò seems to be taking a very courageous stance by insisting that the scientific community do its part to responsibly educate the general public regarding vaping versus smoking. He calls this obsession to identify vaping devices and e-liquids as tobacco products an American phenomenon, and one that is not consistent throughout the global scientific community.