Not in my experience they don't. Most all of the weed we used to get in the upper midwest in the 70's came up from Mexico. I KNOW this.
Okay, so everything that was in Mexico was landrace sativa. There was no Indica. ON OCCASION, we would get a batch of the skunkiest, blueberry on the face of the Earth that would melt anyone into the couch and make all the colors get richer and made you forget your way home...etc. All of it was sativa. And on certain occasions, someone would bring in Gold Columbian or Panama Red or something from even further South....ALL of those were sativas, too.
Indica was SO rare in those days. No one where I lived even knew it existed until the Vietnam war ended and the soldiers came home. Thai weed was what we first experienced as being Indica. Was it different than the Mexican sativa? In a way....yes. But it had nothing to do with making anyone feel energized and "up" or whatever they say sativas are supposed to do these days. In those days,
all good weed got people "stoned". I guarantee you that no one was going to smoke ANY of that sativa and then go to the gym!
If it got you stoned, then that meant you were "laid back" and "mellow" -not outgoing and adventurous.
None of that marketing stuff made sense to me, so I eventually started to put all of the buds I bought, under the scope. Almost always, the so-called sativas had nothing but clear, underripe trichomes. The other strains that were supposed to be couch lock Indicas, usually had pale amber colored trichomes -or it looked fuzzy and had all the trichome heads knocked off altogether. A person could smoke underripe weed and NOT feel stoned, and then have the suggestion be that the lack of stoned-ness, was merely a unique quality of sativas. I say no.
It wasn't until the advent of legal weed that suddenly these differences started to be discussed....and that's no coincidence.