Just a general spiel, directed at nobody and nothing in particular, except perhaps vaguely at the subject-matter covered by the thread:
IMO, you should only introduce someone to psychedelics if they request the introduction.
Giving someone a hit or two of LSD is a far cry from handing them a joint or a Budweiser-- it
will cause drastic changes in their cognition, for better or worse, some of which may be quite permanent. This can be a good thing, or a bad thing; occasionally, it is simply a neutral thing and doesn't result in much change. But usually, in most people, psychedelics
will noticeably alter their personality (I rarely utilize the future imperative tense, life being so uncertain I reserve it for times when I consider an outcome to be extremely likely to happen-- in this circumstance, I can phrase that statement in the future imperative with confidence). So, you can see how this should never be taken lightly; it is a big responsibility. Psychedelics are not toys; they are extremely powerful mind-tools that should be approached with respect and caution.
You should never actively persuade someone to do psychedelics-- if they display some genuine interest in the subject, then just point them towards unbiased sources of information and allow them to make their own decision on the matter, free from any pressure or biased influence.
Prosthelytizing for psychedelics is completely unethical and wrong. It should never be done, and should be actively discouraged! (I rarely use exclamation points, but in this case it is warranted). Psychedelics are so powerful, so undeniably puissant in their ability to radically alter cognition, that the choice whether or not to ingest them should only be made by an un-pressured, lucid, and properly informed mind.
Additionally, the concepts surrounding psychedelia span such vast territory that one cannot offer a proper explanation to a neophyte; any explanation one attempts to give will inevitably fail to do the subject matter any justice.
To begin to elucidate the mystery surrounding psychedelics, in a coherent and systematic manner that is capable of being grasped by the non-psychedelically-initiated, one must appeal to a myriad of diverse disciplines in order to piece together an adequate explanation. These disciplines include but are not limited to: applied mathematics, chemistry, physics, pharmacology, neuroscience, mysticism, psychology, religious history, genetics, philosophy, linguistics, sociology, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, teleology, mathematical and philosophical logic, etc etc etc.
What I'm trying to say is that I could write a thousand page book trying to tackle the subject matter of psychedelia and still fail to provide a thorough analysis, or indeed even a decent one. Trying to convince someone to do psychedelics is inherently unethical because it's not even possible to explain the concept to them-- certainly not in casual conversation. Tripping must be experienced to be understood. Trying to teach someone who's never tripped what tripping is like, is comparable to trying to teach a walrus the rules of blackjack: there are numerous insurmountable obstacles to communication about the matter in question, and all attempts to do so will be either futile or harmful.
If someone you know feels ready to try a psychedelic drug, and they express that desire to you,
then you should enthusiastically help them start their psychedelic journey-- but until that time, I think it's highly advisable to keep quiet about taking psychedelic drugs and instead focus on projecting the values that the psychedelic experience promotes: such as love, unity, inclusiveness, and appreciation for nature and our fellow sentient beings.