Indica/Sativa differences have been an ongoing myth for a very long time. It makes no difference in your high, these just refer to the plants physical structure.
Some of the most couch locky strains I've ever smoked were Sativa, and I've had very energizing Indica. It's all about the terpenes and other cannabinoids. But the medical cannabis industry continues to push this myth to help make some products seem more appealing. "This one will make you feel happy and creative" "this one will make you relaxed and sleepy" it's all BS.
I believe this whole thing stemmed from the fact that there were specific landrace strains (meaning grew in the wild) that happened to be sativa. Durban Poison is an example, though it will often be hybridized these days. But back in like, the 70s, Acapulco Gold was a landrace strain that was very common and was sativa, and just happened to have a more uppity high.
Then there are strains like Afghan which happened to be more sedating, which also grew naturally in the wild. This is all where I think the ideas of indica/sativa come from. In the end it doesn't matter, a lot of people placebo themselves into thinking "oh, this is sativa and it says I should feel this way" and then they do. In my teens, my dealers had good shit, and they'd always say "oh yeah you'll feel euphoric off this" and such. I mean, it's THC, it's gonna do that no matter what. Though again terpenes play a role in this. Any flower that has a strong lemon flavor has always had an uplifting high for me. I prefer concentrate nowadays though because I find the highs are all similarly sedating, particularly distillates.
I remember when Indica first hit the market. People were used to Sativas and some folks absolutely hated the Indica buzz. I noticed a big difference myself before even reading about the differences in subspecies(?). I thought of the big, stinky, cosmetically wonderful Indica buds as "bootleg pot". Something like the "bootleg black mollies" being sold (which were ephedrive, phenylpropanolamine, and caffeine). Strong buzz, but something missing.
There were articles in High Times where "the connoisseur" bemoaned what was missing in the new homegrown. Problem was that Indica grew so much better in America due to Sativas being mostly Equatorial. The quest began to breed Sativa characteristics into Indica.
If people hadn't seen an advantage to Sativa, why was Haze created rather early on? It sure doesn't have superior growth characteristics.
That said, just about all pot grown now is a hybrid. Even Green Crack which has a nice Sativa buzz is something like 30% Indica.
Growth morphology doesn't even mean anything anymore. There are Sativa (buzz) dominant plants which grow like an Indica. After all, the original goal was to have a Sativa which grew like an Indica outdoors in America.
The people who say it's all the same anymore are kinda right in a way. The gene pool has become pretty homogenous. However, I can easily feel a difference between strains which are very Sativa dominant (in the high) and ones which are very Indica dominant. I live in a non-legal state, so my access to known strains is more limited and I've still seen the difference at times.
In the last year, I've had Green Crack and Grape Ape (off the top of my head) side by side which were very different in effects.
The Green Crack had popcorn buds like an Indica but a very Sativa high. Supposedly, there is a Green Crack which leans way more Indica in effects. Two children from the same parent can look very different.
The original Sativas and the original Indicas brought quite different highs to the table and some current strains lean heavily toward one of those in effects.
And the gene pool is also very homogenous at this point. Much of it does feel the same.
