Oops, my post earlier should be as follows...
got sucked into this thread last night and I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. I grew up on, and remember fondly, spliffs of tropical sativas (and look forward to growing some sativa leaning autos...will look into FB Mexican Airlines). Yes, a lot of the Mexican stuff was seedy, but quality varied. A lot was probably grown on a large scale, maybe by poor farmers that didn't even smoke, and could be seedy and stemmy and probably improperly dried and cured. But some was fantastic, even if it wasn't sensimilla. Then we started getting Hawaiian Blue in the early 90s in Houston and then some BC bud and eventually some more local homegrown. Some of the best was local outdoor sativas or hybrids, maybe Shoreline. Some growers knew what they were doing before the information age. We didn't. But our Mexican bagseed sativas that were guerilla grown still got us high AF. I'm glad to have started growing again after 25 years. And I started with a couple autos.
Back on topic, I'm a researcher and it seems the distinctions drawn, either by the cannabis community or the scientific one are somewhat arbitrary and definitely too rigid. This is a plant whose use stretches deep into prehistory (hemp rope being found in Czech Republic or somewhere in Central Europe in 27000 BC) and was possibly the first plant cultivated by humans. Food, fuel, fiber and medicine. And it's adaptable AF and originated near the massive organized trade network of the Silk Road and was spread widely at an early age. There is some evidence (inconclusive) that it had spread to the New World prior to European contact, not to mention from South Asia to Central Asia, Southeast Asia, China, Europe, Russia, Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa many centuries ago. Continual selection pressure, based on both feral populations and heavy human interaction (for many diverse uses), over the millennia, not to mention intensive breeding and indoor cultivation in the last half century have turned into what scientists acknowledge is the most genetically diverse plant on the planet. (BTW, Canis familiaris the dog is the most genetically diverse animal on the planet.)
Luckily we live in a new golden age of cannabis where research is rampant, testing is becoming more and more affordable, and more and more people are breeding. It will be an exciting few decades for sure.
I may resort to indoor growing at some point, and it has many obvious advantages, but sungrown is where my heart is. It should be possible to grow superb flower outdoors in any state in the union with the advances in autoflower genetics. I'm looking forward to my grows this year.
As to whether the psychedelic highs of yesteryear were caused by tropical sativa genetics, full full-spectrum (the sun), curing techniques, cannabinoid ratios, terpenes or something else, I don't think we really know yet. Are there notable differences in "sativa" and"indica" highs... surely. But the boundaries are much more blurry and shades of gray than black and white. I've heard that even old-school sativas were high in CBD. One, I don't recall the source or know if, or how often, that might have been true. Two, I'm not even sure you could test that anymore. Even in traditional cannabis cultures, hybrid seeds have been introduced especially in the last few decades and landraces are frequently diluted if not replaced. I would like to do some experimenting with my harvest this year as far as both trichome maturation as well as curing techniques (anyone try Southeast Asian curing where you wrap and bury sativa buds?). Lastly, does it have to do with the enigmatic THCV content? Anybody notice there's a new Dutch Passion strain, THC-Victory
https://dutch-passion.com/en/cannabis-seeds/thc-victory, that is a 1:1 THC:THCV strain with about 6.5% of each? This is very interesting. I look forward to specific cannabinoid breeding.
Cheers,