Decisions should be made not on absolute badness or goodness of any given outcome, but on comparative goodness of alternative outcomes following from alternative possible decisions.

On my reading, the comparisons are there, but they are implicit. Here are what I took to be the implicit assumptions. For every state S of affairs under consideration, if the money is worthless in S, then S is worse than the all-else-equal state S' where the money is not worthless. Similarly, in any state T where kratom is unregulated, that state is better than the all-else-equal state T' where kratom is regulated. (In particular, states are being considered at a low-enough resolution that you can just flip the "the money is worthless" or "kratom is unregulated" bits and get another state. Also, while some fanciful states might be made worse if kratom were unregulated and all else were equal, those states are not being considered because their probabilities are too low.)

So, according to the above implicit comparisons, losing money always makes things worse. It is therefore valid to say that losing money is bad. Similarly, it is valid to say that keeping kratom unregulated is good.

Given this, it is valid to make statements of the form, "If X happens, then A will happen (which is bad in the above sense), but B will happen (which is good in the above sense)."