It did though, because Anslinger and Hurst both rejected in congress and in the press (respectively) doctors opinion to congress that it was safe for consumption. You could say it was also a birthing of "Big Pharma" in that doctors got whipped by money.
No, both are not correct. Big pharma had nothing to do with criminalizing it in the first place, in the 30s.
It did though, because Anslinger and Hurst both rejected in congress and in the press (respectively) doctors opinion to congress that it was safe for consumption. You could say it was also a birthing of "Big Pharma" in that doctors got whipped by money.