This chapter introduces the central logics that drive cartels to use violence against the state. Purely defensive violence to physically reduce losses from state repression is one important logic of violence, but cannot explain cartels’ use of threats, retribution, and terror tactics, all common and clearly coercive in nature. I distinguish two coercive logics by which anti-state violence can influence policy outcomes. In “violent corruption”, cartels use threats of violence against police and other enforcers to induce lax enforcement and more advantageous bribe agreements; in “violent lobbying”, cartels use high-profile, terroristic violence to pressure state leaders into making changes to de jure policy. I summarize the factors favoring each and their predicted empirical footprints. Violent lobbying is subject to collective action problems among cartels, and thus unlikely under conditions of turf war; I present quantitative evidence that it was more salient in Colombia (where cartelswere united at onset in a mutual-protection organization) than Rio de Janeiro and Mexico. Overall, violent corruption is the more prominent pathway. I then discuss several logics of anti-state violence that could arise from inter-cartel turf war, potential pathways of causal interaction between turf war and cartel–state conflict, and “general equilibrium” effects of repression when criminal markets are fragmented.