The penalties imposed last week by Judge Roland Beaudoin against the C. N. Brown Company for 27 violations of the law prohibiting the sales of tobacco to minors are strong and unprecedented. The hefty $10,444 fine and the suspension of tobacco-sales licenses at two of the company’s Big Apple stores should send a clear message to all tobacco retailers that compliance with the law is not optional.

C.N. Brown’s reaction to the ruling is discouraging. A modest promise to do better was overshadowed by a whole lot of whining. While there is no reason to believe the violations were intentional, the company’s eagerness to blame everyone and everything but itself suggests Judge Beaudoin’s message was overdue and its strength warranted.

Maine has the highest smoking rate among young adults in the nation — fully one-third of that age group is addicted to nicotine. Yet there is a bright spot in that tragic situation — Maine retailers have the highest rate of compliance with the law banning sales to those under 18 in the nation. According to data compliled by the Food and Drug Administration based upon spot checks of retail outlets, Maine stores refuse underage sales and check ID when required 91 percent of the time, compared to a national average of just 61 percent. Maine is the only state with a single-digit violation rate and one of just a handful of states where concerted efforts at compliance are evident. Maine retailers should be proud of this accomplishment.

C.N. Brown’s compliance rate is 88 percent. While far better than the national average, it translates to a violation rate 50 percent higher than the Maine standard, the only standard that matters to Maine. With 87 outlets — Brown is one of the state’s largest tobacco retailers — this performance is unacceptible. And the details of the case demonstrate a failure to take the issue seriously: The 27 violations consist of 14 admitted to last week, on top of 13 prior violations; the stores on Sanford and Farmington that will lose their licenses for a month were guilty of multiple violations.

What was called for was a sincere public apology and a description of the steps that will be taken to improve. Instead, the company pouted.

According to company spokesman John Pinto, the Big Apple stores were singled out for what he called “sting” operations (although perhaps the 13 priors just made it seem that way). The tight labor market and the difficulty of retaining staff were blamed, with no explanation of how other retailers, faced with the same problem, manage to do so much better. Pulling out the tiresome “business climate” complaint, Mr. Pinto wondered aloud how business-friendly Maine is. A hint: Maine should not be the least bit friendly to busineeses that repeatedly violate the law.

Worst, and silliest, of all, Mr. Pinto asserted that his company’s 88-percent compliance rate is not failure — when he was in school, that was a solid B-plus. If the grading is done on a curve, however, the class average is 91 and student Brown needs to study harder.

But this isn’t a geometry test. This the law and the expection is for full compliance. To expand upon Mr. Pinto’s ill-conceived analogy, there also is a law requiring people to pay for items they carry out of a store. It is doubtful that Mr. Pinto would give a B-plus to Big Apple customers who complied with that law only 88 percent of the time.

It is hoped that this unfortunate flustered reaction is merely the result of momentary embarrassment and that, with time for reflection, the company will focus its attention where it belongs — obeying the law. The act of writing out a sizeable check and of suspending tobacco sales at two stores should aid that process.