Drug markets and violence are often presented as inextricably linked. Yet, the use of organized violence by trafficking networks against each other and against the state is not uniform. Insights into the selective use of violence lie in disputes between crime groups over control of lucrative distribution networks and market share. Insights into the use of violence against the state lie in the efforts by criminal justice personnel to curtail the drug trade and the political goals pursued by trafficking organizations. This article discusses these arguments in the context of cocaine markets and the Americas before turning more extensively to methamphetamine in the USA and especially Japan. The latter one, understudied by scholars, offers a challenging plausibility probe for arguments addressing the selective nature of organized violence in drug markets.Drug markets and violence are often presented by policymakers and pundits as inextricably linked. 1 The U.S. 2008 National Drug Control Strategy Report, for example, speaks of the global threats posed by "drug-related violence", "drug activity and associated violence", and "narcoviolence" ([47], p. 34, 39, 47). The challenge of "drug-related violence" also looms large in the U.S. 2008 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report which notes the violent threats against children, women, societies, and states fueled by drug growers, drug traffickers, street gangs, and terrorist organizations [48].Scholars have sought more nuanced insights into the linkages between drugs and violence. Paul J. Goldstein's [15] efforts to clarify the relationship between drugs and violent crime have been particularly influential in the U.S. literature. Goldstein argues for a threefold typology consisting of violence linked to the psychological effects of drug usage, violence stemming from the addict's need to commit crime to finance a drug habit, and violence linked to the drug trade as an illicit market. Although noting that overlap occurs between the ideal types, Goldstein and others (e.g., [5]) posit this Crime Law Soc Change (2009) 52:285-295