EDITOR: Kat Roth ("Pot consequences," Letters, Feb. 1) stated that "the unfortunate landlord could surely receive restitution for the destruction of his property" by a pot-growing tenant ("Wake up and smell the pot," Jan. 29). As a landlord, I can state that the chance of restitution is pretty much non-existent.

Most court fees fall on the landlord. Even if awarded a judgment, tenants often have no assets to attach, which means there will be no payment. If they are selling the pot they grow, they will receive cash and have no traceable income.

Allowing residents to grow pot in a rental property would be an egregious mistake for both landlords and neighbors. As it is, law enforcement is overwhelmed with narcotics complaints from neighbors of growers and open-air pot smokers.

If tenants are allowed to grow in landlords' homes, who is going to police the number of plants? Who is going to be responsible for mold claims caused by the humidity from sealed rooms? Who is going to handle neighbors' complaints about increased vehicle traffic from sales or distribution? Would lawmakers in California consider loosening the inspection rules to allow landlords to frequently visit their property where a tenant has been allowed to grow? I doubt it. As it is, California is a very unfriendly place for both business and landlord liability risks.