Growing Problems & Going Concerns

The Chronicle earned the first seven letters of its name today with this very interesting article on tenants who grow marijuana indoors. The article is written from the landlord's perspective, and concludes:

Now Brooke has added language to her rental contract. "It says flat out there is to be no pot growing in the house. And I tell them I am responsible for smoke detectors -- I will come and examine them on a regular basis. I've always been a good landlord and now I've become an even better one."

Yet what works in one county might not work in another. According to Janan New, such additional clauses may or may not be enforceable, especially in a rent-controlled town like San Francisco. "You can't screen on this -- that would be illegal," she says, adding that even the presence of a grow room might not warrant grounds for eviction. "Damaging a property would be considered part of grounds for a nuisance eviction. But in San Francisco, the damage has got to be pretty egregious."

I never took landlord/tenant, but may soon get to it in bar studying. But here's what I'm curious about: as absurd as it is, it's still a violation of federal law to grow marijuana. Why can't a landlord evict someone for violating federal law, whether or not they are damaging the apartment? What if they were just counterfeitering money? Would I not be able to evict them?

Just curious. It sounds ridiculous if the answer is no, because on the civil side, we do expect landlords to police federal law by making them vicariously liable for copyright and trademark infringement that occurs on or in their premises. The article suggested that landlords in this context could also be liable for various torts & crimes arising from growing (the threatened countersuit for mold was hilarious, & sad). If there's looming liability, why is eviction illegal? Thanks.